From irimland@zundelsite.org Wed Apr 2 04:43:22 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 20:43:22 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 4/1/2003 - "Another four weeks in solitary - and for what?" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 1, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I was not able to talk to Ernst today, but friends called me to tell me that, exactly as Ernst had predicted, the judge refused to grant him bail - which means that Ernst will have to stay another four weeks in solitary confinement until yet another hearing scheduled for May 1st. I did talk to him yesterday, and he felt great about the first day's hearing because he got important testimony into the transcripts - but did not think the judge would allow him to be freed on bail. As it turned out, he was right. I want you to read how the first day's hearing went, as reported by a friend - and then compare it to how it was reported by his enemies: =46riend first: [START] Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:18:37 -0500 > Dear Ingrid, This is to acknowledge receipt of your Z-Gram March 31, 2003. We were not home yesterday because we attended Ernst's hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Paul Fromm did a great job as acting lawyer. He was much better than the Government's two stooges who did nothing but try to delay the proceedings. However, the star of the show was your husband and our admired friend Ernst Zundel. He was in his element as he eloquently presented his case with great confidence and superior knowledge and thoroughly deflated CSIS. He brought out the shocking fact that this government agency allowed parcels containing pipe bombs to be delivered to him from Vancouver on regular Air Canada flights. This was a great danger to hundreds of people on board and the post office handler who processed it. If the Canadian public only knew what evil lurks in this agency. Immigration minister Denis Coderre has not seen fit to answer my letter on Ernst's behalf which I sent him close to six weeks ago. So, I will send him and my local MP another letter detailing the threats of the Jewish menace to Canadian freedom. I will also ask who ordered the horrendous way that Ernst is being kept in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day less 10 minutes, in a cell with no windows where the lights are on all day with only a bed and toilet as furniture. As you know, he is allowed no newspapers, radio or other written material. We tried to leave him a pen, block of paper and a clipboard but were not allowed to. A vicious smear campaign is being conducted by the local print media and especially, the Toronto Sun. They are all despicable Zionist vassals. With his magnificent presentation Ernst has done everything he could and it is our hope that he will prevail agaist all odds. If not, God help us! [END] Here follows your standard media smear: [START] GLOBE AND MAIL | Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 Niagara Falls, Ont. =97 Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel is a risk to Canadian security and if released would be a lightning rod for the white supremacist movement, a CSIS agent told an immigration hearing on Monday. Mr. Zundel appeared in orange prison overalls and waved to friends in the hearing room, Toronto's CFTO TV News reported on Monday. A Canadian resident for some 40 years until 2001, he is seeking refugee status since his return to Canada by U.S. authorities. He has been in a Niagara Detention Centre in Thorold, Ont., since Feb. 19 awaiting an immigration hearing. If deported to Germany, Mr. Zundel would face charges of suspicion of incitement of hate. The charges stem from material on his Web site that denies that the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War ever took place. The German-born Mr. Zundel moved to Canada in 1958 as a teenager where he held permanent resident status. In the 1980s, he became known for staging stunts like strapping himself to a crucifix to get across his Holocaust denial messages. He left Canada in 2001 for the United States after a long-running human-rights complaint alleging he spread anti-Semitic literature. Mr. Zundel was arrested Feb. 3 at his Tennessee home for overstaying a visitor's visa. [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Thu Apr 3 02:11:34 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:11:34 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 4/2/2003 - "The parallels are glaring" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 2, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: One of the very first "revisionist" speeches I heard was sent to me via audio. I still consider it one of the best. It has been around for a long time, but it is a true classic, and you owe it to yourself to listen to it more than once - and to pass it on to a friend, for there are parallels to our times we better comprehend. Introductory Note Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S. ===== A Jewish Defector Warns America by Benjamin Freedman Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep. What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally. I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime. Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I. After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that. That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost. That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout." It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel. Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth." Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema 'Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat. And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that? There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations. Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything. The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that. The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat. After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do? In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "Made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "Made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing. Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous. The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth. Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world. For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have. What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world. What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going. ===== To be continued tomorrow: "Jews or "Khazars" ? ===== From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Apr 4 00:04:35 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:04:35 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 4/3/2003 - "About Khazars" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 3, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Yesterday, I promised you the conclusion of the remarkable Benjamin Freedman speech on how Israel was born. Today, Freedman comments on the "Khazar" connection - "Jews" who are not, according to him and many others who have studied this mystery, the "real" Jews who lived in Palestine for centuries. The claim is that they are imposters. Freedman speaking - and just remember, this speech was given in 1961: [START] Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony. What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as "Jews". I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as "so-called Jews", because I know what they are). The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves "Jews", were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were. They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call "Jews". There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith. These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today "Jews". Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. ===== (Source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/benjamin.htm) From irimland@zundelsite.org Sat Apr 5 02:33:25 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:33:25 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 4/4/2003 - "Toronto Star: Kick Zundel out!" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 4, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: The Toronto Star, also known in the streets as the Red Star, has besmirched itself once again with its own poison in an editorial titled "Show Zundel the door." You find it below, interspersed with some Zundelsite comments, followed by a reply from the Director of Canadian Association for Free Expression, Paul Fromm: [START] Apr. 3, 2003. 01:00 AM TORONTO STAR Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel is making a mockery of the refugee claim process. That's no surprise. What's more disturbing is how Immigration Minister Denis Coderre is neglecting to stop the charade. Zundel, a German-born resident of Canada for some 40 years, is no stranger to notoriety or manipulating the system. He moved to Tennessee in 2001 in the midst of a long-running human rights probe, complaining Canada wanted to silence his views. Indeed, a human rights tribunal ordered him to remove anti-Semitic hate literature from his Web site. He did not. (Zundelsite comment: For the Nth time, he couldn't have removed a comma if he had wanted to. He does not now, nor has he ever, known the password to the Zundelsite! The much-contested website happens to belong to me!) The United States sent him back Feb. 19 for overstaying a visitor's visa. Zundel, whose bids for Canadian citizenship have always been rejected, then claimed refugee status. America doesn't want him, nor does Canada. [Zundelsite comment: First of all, he was never given a reason for the refusal the first time. His second citizenship bid was not rejected - Ernst withdrew it after waiting seven years. And for the record: He had no problems whatsoever in America. Ask anyone. Unwary American bureaucrats were disgracefully used by nefarious forces to act as body snatchers.) However, Germany does, and has issued a warrant for his arrest on charges under its hate laws. He was convicted in absentia in 1991. (Zundelsite comment: As I remember it, he was convicted for trying to organize the Leuchter Congress, which should have been good news for Jews and Gentiles alike - namely that no one but no one was "gassed", since science does not lie, not even for the "Nazis". But the arrest warrant that is outstanding now is there for a different reason: It is meant as a salutary lesson for having exercised free speech - a hard-won right, according to a Zundel Supreme Court decision in 1992) Yet this week the Immigration and Refugee Board ordered Zundel to continue being held in a Niagara Region jail pending his refugee claimant hearing. No date has been set, and likely won't be for months. Zundel's case is a black mark on the entire refugee claim system, already under justifiable criticism. (Zundelsite comment: Words to the wise! ) The board has a massive backlog and the largest workload in its history. Nearly 53,000 cases were on the books at the end of 2002. Government lawyers say Ottawa is still investigating whether Zundel is inadmissible on the grounds of national security. They argue he must not be released because he is a public danger who would spread white supremacist views. Locking him up is not the answer. Getting rid of him is. Every time he has a hearing, he gains a platform for his bottomless well of hatred. Every public appearance is an excuse for his smirking, misguided followers to gather. Such nonsense must stop. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service declared Zundel a danger fully 10 years ago. (Zundelsite comment: Actually, it was eight years ago. But a more cogent question is: Did anything dangerous happen in eight years? Was Canada in peril? Ever? Is it now? What threadbare nonsense is this!) What more evidence does Ottawa need? (Zundelsite comment: How about REAL evidence - not shrieking, smears and innuendo? ) Refugee claimants deserve a fair and expeditious hearing. If blindingly obvious cases such as this one can't be dealt with in a timely way, it brings Canada's refugee system into question. (Zundelsite comment: MORE words to the wise! Hear, hear!) How can Coderre justify this needlessly long process? This isn't a case of an unknown claimant for whom officials truly do need time to investigate properly. Zundel's continued presence here is intolerable. Kick him out now. [END] __________- Send your contributions to Letters to the Editor via email to lettertoed@thestar.ca; via fax to 416 869-4322; or by mail to One Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1E6. ===== ===== ===== Reply to this editorial from the Canadian Association for Free Expression Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 Ph: 905-897-7221; FAX: 905-277-3914 [START] April 3, 2003 The Editor, The Toronto Star. Dear Sir: BY FAX 416 869-4322-- For Publication Your editorial "Show Zundel the Door" (Toronto Star, April 3, 2003) confuses real abuse of the refugee system with a genuine case. A refugee is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or beliefs, provided that he is non-violent. Germany has draconian anti-free speech laws that are not comparable to anything we have in Canada. Truth is no defence. Publisher Ernst Zundel faces five years imprisonment and a heavy fine should he be returned to Germany. One may not like his eccentric take on history, but isn't tolerance and diversity what Canada is all about? You state: "Government lawyers say Ottawa is still investigating whether Zundel is inadmissible on the grounds of national security. They argue he must not be released because he is a public danger who would spread white supremacist views." In Zundel's case the threat to national security argument is completely bogus. After the abuses of the old Security and Intelligence Branch of the RCMP, Parliament created CSIS in 1982. To avoid abuse or needless snooping, a threat to national security was carefully defined. It included espionage, attempts to overthrow the government by violence, activities directed by a foreign state or "serious acts of violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective." Zundel is a pacifist. He has never been convicted of any crime, much less a crime of violence, under Canada's Criminal Code. His views may be reprehensible to many. However, the CSIS Act makes it clear that non-violent advocacy does not constitute a threat to national security. Specifically, a threat to national security "does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent." Ernst Zundel is a publisher, not a terrorist. Let him stay. Paul Fromm Director [END] ===== From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Apr 6 00:19:34 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:19:34 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 4/5/2003 - "ZUNDEL, PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE, DETAINED ANOTHER 30 DAYS" by Paul Fromm Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 5, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Subject: ZUNDEL, PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE, DETAINED ANOTHER 30 DAYS Today's punchy ZGram was written by Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, CAFE. This is another one for history: (START) Dear Free Speech Supporter: Here's my brief report on the two-day detention hearing for Ernst Zundel, held March 31 and April 1. Two lawyers had quit on Ernst Zundel. I was asked by supporters, consistent with our mandate to fight for free speech, to act as Mr. Zundel's legal representative at these hearings. Just to recap. Ernst Zundel, a German-born revisionist publisher, had left Canada in 2000 and taken up residence in Sevierville, Tennessee with his American wife Ingrid Rimland. On February 5, INS agents arrested him for alleged violations, including failure to attend a hearing. This situation is very complex. It appears that his then lawyer may have made errors or let him down. Mr. Zundel is scrupulous about obligations and legal matters and always sought to fulfill every requirement. With unseemly haste, he was ordered deported and banned from the U.S. for 20 years. He was returned to Canada. Our Minister of Immigration Denis Coderre who has seldom met a "refugee" claimant he didn't like snorted and roared. "Just watch me," he threatened, emulating Pierre Trudeau vow to get the FLQ. The absurd Coderre, already prejudging the Zundel case, said no one would make a mockery of our refugee system. Well, that's already been done by him and his department. Mr. Zundel, since 1958, had been a landed immigrant. New changes in the law decreed that if one was absent from Canada for three years in five, one lost "landed immigrant status." At his first hearing, Mr. Zundel was informed that he was no longer considered a "landed immigrant." This decision is under appeal. His only remaining recourse was to claim "refugee" status based on a well-founded fear of persecution should he be returned to Germany. The Germans have issued a request for his extradition to face "hate" charges under a system where truth is no defence and where a fierce and punitive fine and up to five years in prison await him. On Monday, March 31, I arrived at the Niagara Falls, Ontario Immigration Offices where the hearing would be held. Nearly 20 supporters from around Southern Ontario and from as far away as Alabama gathered to support the prisoner of conscience. After numerous inquiries, I was told that "the prisoner" had arrived. I was ushered into a small holding cell. There was Ernst Zundel, unshaven, wearing a humiliating pumpkin orange prison jumpsuit. Worst of all, he was in leg irons. A shame-faced guard removed them as we began to discuss the case. I had less than 20 minutes to be briefed as to what he wanted. I did have material prepared in advance by several supporters. I was accompanied by Wolfgang Mueller my CAFE colleague. He and I had strategized about the case and he would help with translation of some of the German documents pertinent to the file. As we entered the hearing, a swarm of media surrounded Ernst -- CTV, CBC, radio and numerous print outlets, including the TORONTO STAR, THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR, THE ST. CATHARINES STANDARD, THE NIAGARA FALL REVIEW, and the Canadian Press, oh yes, and THE CANADIAN JEWISH NEWS. On the other side were no less than three government lawyers. Normally, a slim mild-mannered man named Bill Reid handles these cases. As he explained to me, he's not even a lawyer. So, if you're a Jamaican drug dealer or gunman who's been ordered deported and are caught trying to sneak in, or, if you're a Tibetan asylum shopper coughing u multi-drug resistant TB, you face Bill Reid. However, if you're a 64 year old pacifist, a Revisionist publisher and publicist for unpopular views, then you face the A Team, the Department of Justice's Dream Team. Heading the taxpayers' anti-free speech hit squad was Donald MacIntosh. The government brought him in specially to face Mr. Zundel. MacIntosh is one of their heavy hitters in war crimes cases. The assignment seemed odd, as Ernst Zundel was all of 6 years old when the war ended in 1945 and even his most fanciful and inventive foes haven't accused him of war crimes. MacIntosh, thin, inordinately pale, sports long shaggy grey hair and would screw up his face into a grimace when questioning Mr. Zundel. The Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator was Robert Murrant. In his opening remarks, he made it clear that he would first like to hear submissions about 58.1.c of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 58.1 says that a person in custody under the Act shall be released, unless the adjudicator is satisfied (c) "that the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they [sic] are inadmissible on grounds of security." He, then, proposed a definition that all but guaranteed the Crown victory. As he saw it, these words meant that 1. he had to be assured that CSIS was undertaking an investigation for the Minister of Immigration and that, 2., the Minister said he had a reasonable suspicion that the detained person was a threat to national security. We also learned that Murrant had attended an in camera hearing in Ottawa on March 25. This secret briefing by CSIS is part of the Court of the Star Chamber proceedings that have been used against Ernst Zundel. I strongly objected that such secret hearing, where we had no opportunity to confront the witness or even know what was said, violated the basic guarantees of Anglo-Saxon justice and Common Law; that the accused has the right to face his accusers. MacIntosh retorted that the Supreme Court endorsed such secret testimony in its judgement in the Chiarelli case. Actually, in that judgement the Supreme Court upheld Section 48.2 of the CSIS Act that can exclude the accused from portions of a hearing. However, the Court noted: "The CSIS Act ... recognizes the competing individual and state interests and attempts to find a reasonable balance. ... Although the first day of the hearing was conducted in camera, the respondent was provided with a summary of the evidence presented." It must be noted that the evidence in the Chiarelli case involved drug trafficking and murder. Ernst Zundel's case involves the promulgation of ideas, not the peddling of drugs or the commission of murder, I argued. The first and only witness against Ernst Zundel was CSIS agent David Stewart. Stewart indicated that CSIS was preparing a report for Immigration Minister Denis Coderre was to whether Ernst Zundel constitutes a threat to national security. Stewart was then questioned on a four-page report, which he said he hadn't written, but on which he could comment. This report is more an ideological rant, more in keeping with a press statement from B'nai Brith or an ARA screed than a balanced intelligence report. It is filled with repeated use of smear words -- "neo-Nazi", "White supremacist", "anti-Semite." For all the alleged investigation that had been done into Ernst Zundel, the report is based on two ancient media reports: a March 25, 1981 TORONTO STAR story about raids on rightist homes in Germany that turned up literature supplied by Ernst Zundel; and a 1993 CBC "Fifth Estate" programme linking Ernst Zundel to various right-wing groups in Germany. He was alleged to have sent them money to distribute literature and organize protests and to have supplied them with literature. Stewart's appearance at the witness table was heralded by a demand that no photos be taken of him for "security" reasons. Because of his delicate job, MacIntosh alleged, Stewart's "personal safety" might be in danger. I strongly objected that this melodrama was injurious to Ernst Zundel, leaving the impression that somehow he or his supporters might taken vengeance on the CSIS agent. Dark hints that one's very life in jeopardy is a common tactic of anti-racist campaigners. Both Warren Kinsella and Alan Dutton of the Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society have spread it about that their lives are in danger from the far right. The joke of it is that it's people like Ernst Zundel who've been on the receiving end of assaults and firebombings, not state agents like Stewart or grant-catchers like Dutton. Murrant, of course, ordered that the brave CSIS snoop not be photographed. After brief testimony, Stewart, slim, witrh a typical tightly trimmed cop moustache was mine for cross-examination. I asked him to go over the definition of a threat to national security. The CSIS Act makes it clear that threats to national security include espionage, activities directed by a foreign state, attempts to violently overthrow the government of Canada or "the threat of use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state." I then had him read the special warning Parliament included in the legislation, as it sought to avoid the creation of a political police that would target non-violent opponents of the government of the day or of the powerful groups that back it. He read: A threat to national security "does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent." "Then, what is Ernst Zundel doing in your report?" I demanded. The main allegations were that Zundel "was viewed as the patriarch or leader of the White supremacist movement in Canada; was and still is a leading distributor of revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda world-wide, [and] ... maintained White supremacist contacts internationally and channelled money through these contacts to promote his cause." Even if all these accusations were true -- and we deny many of them -- how would any of this fit the definition of "national security?" I asked. Immediately MacIntosh was on his feet. Stewart, he argued, was not a legal expert and could not give a legal opinion. Suddenly, it seemed Stewart wasn't much of an expert on anything. He hadn't read the report and couldn't or wouldn't report in any detail on the Zundel file. Perhaps, he's not a legal expert, but he and CSIS are supposed to operate with the law, I insisted. "Do Zundel's activities even fall within the CSIS mandate? Are they not, if fact, simply non-violent protest and dissent? I was thwarted in my pursuit of this vital information. I then asked Stewart about some of the inflammatory labels. "Would Ernst Zundel," for instance, "describe himself as a White supremacist?" Stewart didn't know. I then questioned him as to whether he knew the disposition of the charges arising from the raids of 1981 -- the subject of the sensationalist article that formed part of the report. Stewart said he did not. Our CSIS expert cannot have done his homework. In the detention hearing of February 28, Ernst Zundel asked the same question and received the same answer. And, yet, CSIS is supposedly actively inquiring into whether or not Zundel is a threat to national security. In his testimony, Stewart said that the White supremacist movement had been in decline since 1994. Zundel's return would serve as a lightning rod perhaps to revive the movement. "But wasn't Ernst Zundel in Canada until 2000 and in this six years somehow his presence didn't revive the movement?" I was being stonewalled. "Isn't 1994 significant because that was the year CSIS agent and financial sugar daddy Grant Bristow was exposed as a leading member of the Heritage Front?" Objections from MacIntosh ensured that I never received a complete answer to this question. While Stewart asserted that he hadn't written the report, he did admit to having edited it. The "Summary Report Concerning Ernst Christof Friedrich Zundel" presented at this hearing was different in some ways from a similar document presented at the February 28 hearing. If anything, if was even more inflammatory and filled with invective. One comical error in the earlier report spoke of "Zundel's battle for the New World Order." The new improved report more accurately describes his "battle against the New World Order." Was the error a momentary lapse on the part of the eagle-eyed and apparently anonymous CSIS writer? Or? We know that Ernst Zundel and a legal representative spoke about this nonsensical statement over the prison phone. Thus, I asked Stewart as my final question: "Was this change the result of new information or of CSIS listening in on Mr. Zundel's telephone calls?" MacIntosh was on his feet objecting furiously. "I thought you might," I concluded. Now, it was our turn. I called two witnesses, Karin Kruger and Gerhard Haas. Miss Kruger testified that she was prepared to offer her house as a surety for bail or guarantee for Ernst Zundel. She'd done this in earlier trials he faced. Hr. Haas indicated that he'd provide a lodging for Mr. Zundel when he's released. We were now at the dramatic moment. Ernst Zundel, dressed in his prison garbs, took the stand. He tore the four page report apart. He went through his 20 year battle with the Canadian legal system. He had always worked within the system. He'd fulfilled all his many bail conditions and faithfully attended at all court appearances where he was required. Ernst explained that he had first come to Canada to avoid military service and explained that he was a pacifist. He had thrown people out of his home for loose talk about violence. He indignantly refuted the allegation of "White Supremacy" pointing out that he'd hired no-White and had sheltered a Jamaican survivor of the Waco massacre for over seven months. Mr. Zundel explained at length his operations in Germany. Yes, he had funded literature distribution and meetings. However, his emphasis was always on education, not violence. His one-time chief public relations mad in Germany Ewald Altans, who was subsequently revealed to be a homosexual working for the German Constitutional Police, had also always shunned violence. Zundel's testimony was passionate and electrifying. I next put to his some pages from Andrew Mitrovica's bombshell book COVERT ENTRY: SPIES, LIES AND CRIMES WITHIN CANADA'S SECRET SERVICE. This book, relying on the revelations of former CSIS paid snoop John Farrell, reveals a sordid campaign of mail opening, lewdly named Operation Vulva, directed against "not only the heads of Neo-Nazi organisations in Canada but all 'racists, fascists and anti-Semites.'" (9\p.127) One of their chief targets was Ernst Zundel. His mail was being seized and opened and examined. Zundel testified that he knew of this spying and said further that some of his mail, including divorce papers, had been stolen. The explosive revelation from the book, however, was that at a certain point Farrell's CSIS handler, an agent named Don Lunau, told him not to touch any packages for Zundel, especially ones from a Vancouver return address. "Farrell's own nervousness peaked when Lunau ordered him to temporarily stop intercepting parcels destined for Zundel's home. ... Lunau wasn't kidding. Farrell could hear the urgency in his voice. In May, 1995, a parcel arrived at Zundel door apparently from a Vancouver post office box. "(P.138-139) it was a pipebomb. "Police said the bomb was packed with enough explosives to seriously maim or kill anyone within 90 metres of the blast." Had CSIS ever warned him about the bomb they clearly knew was coming. "No" Mr. Zundel answered. We tendered into evidence a notarized statement from Jurgen Rieger, Mr. Zundel's German lawyer, outlining how, with one minor exception, Zundel has been cleared of all charges and overturned state actions against him, like the seizure on several occasions of his German postal banking account. Ernst Zundel also confirmed that an Access to Information Request had revealed that he'd been under police surveillance on and off since 1958, when he attended anti-Communist meetings in Montreal. As our second and final witness, I called Rev. Dr. Robert Countess of Alabama, who has known Mr. Zundel for over 15 years. Rev. Countess is a scholar of Biblical Greek and was for over 20 years a U.S. Army chaplain. He is also a staunch historical revisionist and has become a sort of spiritual counsellor to M. Zundel since his move to the U.S. about three years ago. "Is Ernst Zundel a White supremacist?" I asked Dr. Countess. Countess was emphatic in his testimony that Zundel was not a racist or White supremacist and recounted how Zundel had hugged the orphaned Haitian adopted son of a close friend whose memorial they had both attended. The evidence in, it was now time for submissions or argumentation. MacIntosh was insistent. He declared he didn't care how high bail was set, Mr. Zundel would fail to comply with bail conditions. He insisted that the government was continuing its investigation into Mr. Zundel as a threat to national security and, therefore, he must remain in prison. In my submissions, I invited Adjudicator Murrant to consider "the totality" -- a favourite phrase of Mr. MacIntosh -- of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 3.3 requires: "This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that (d) ensures that decisions taken under this Act are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." I urged his to see that 58.1.c meant that the Minister of Immigration must have a "reasonable suspicion" that Ernst Zundel is a threat to national security. I emphasized that Zundel had been a subject of police investigation for over four decades. While Stewart wouldn't acknowledge how long they'd been investigating Mr. Zundel, he did allow that "he was known to them." For nearly a decade -- 1983 to 1992 -- Ernst Zundel had been before the courts and had operated in a fishbowl. Furthermore, he was a publicist, perhaps even a dramatic self-promoter. He was never shy, whether through press releases, or speeches, or television programmes or video or audiotapes to express his views. "Ernst Zundel is an open book, a known quantity," I said. yet, despite the relentless attacks of his enemies and extensive surveillance, neither in Canada nor in Germany had he ever been charged with an offence involving violence, not assault, not conspiracy to commit assault, not accessory after the fact. Indeed, Ernst Zundel has no criminal record in Canada at all. His views might be unpopular, but questioning one version of World War II, is "dissent",. not a threat to national security. "There are no reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is a threat to national security." I pointed out that many of the people who appear before him are illegals with false ID or no ID. There may, indeed, be grounds to hold them pending a national security investigation. Zundel is a public figure, a well known quantity. What's there to investigate? I pointed out that continued incarceration violated Mr. Zundel's right under 11.d "not to be denied reasonable bail" except in accord with the law. Zundel, under the arcane rules of the Niagara Detention Centre, cannot have a pen. He must try to scribble his defence notes with a tiny stub of pencil. I held up a sample to show Mr. Murrant. In these conditions, he cannot mount a proper defence to the many cases he has going under the Immigration Act and in the U.S. to regain his U.S. immigration visa, I argued. Furthermore, Mr. Zundel has a track record. He'd received bail on numerous occasions and, to speed up the process, Mr. MacIntosh had agreed that Zundel had attended all the hearings, as required. The same lady was once again prepared to risk her house as a guarantee. Besides with an expired passport and the prospect of 20 years in prison should he sneak back to the U.S., where precisely was Ernst Zundel to go. Perhaps indelicately, Ernst Zundel had said during his testimony that human rights commission tribunal members and members of other tribunals were party loyalists appointed by the Liberal or Conservative governments of the day. Sadly, this is usually true. I invited Mr. Murrant to defy the wishes of his political masters,. I reminded him that no one remembers the name of the British judge who signed the death sentence of many of the Irish rebels after the failed Easter Rebellion of q1916, but everyone remembered the name of uprising leader Padraic Pearse. Perhaps it went over his head. In his rebuttal,. MacIntosh broke new legal ground. As he sees it, national security means whatever we want it to mean. "The law is a textured and complex instrument. The CSIS Act is only the starting point to what constitutes a threat to national security," he said. Murrant kept us in suspense. At 3:30, he told us he'd be back with a decision in 45 minutes or with the announcement of when he'd have the decision. He returned to say he'd need more time. At 5:30, we returned to the hearing to learn Ernst Zundel's fate. The usual procedure in announcing decisions is to briefly summarize the positions of the two sides and then explain the judgement. The Crown evidence was summarized and then agreed with entirely. Our arguments were not just ignored, they were not even acknowledged. We might just as well have spoken in Tagalog without a translator. Murrant said: "Mr. Stewart testified that CSIS along with the Citizsnship and Immigration Commission are in the process of compiling a report that will be presented to the Minister. Because of the volume of material involved, it is not yet complete. I am satisfied that the Minister is taking steps to inquire into his reasonable suspicion. Is there a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Zundel is inadmissible because of reasons of security. The test of reasonable suspicion is quite low. It is less than reasonable and probable grounds, less than a balance of probabilities." He indicated that the Minister indicating he had a "concern" would be sufficient to be "reasonable". The test here is: Is the Minister taking reasonable steps to inquire, I'm ordering the continued detention of Ernst Zundel. I intend to set the next detention review for May 2, 2003. Several tearful supporters hugged Ernst Zundel. The prison officials seemed ashamed and allowed him a little extra time with his friends and his spiritual counsellor Rev. Dr. Robert Countess. As he was led away, Ernst Zundel said: "I am the last German soldier of World War II." Paul Fromm (END) From irimland@zundelsite.org Mon Apr 7 16:25:36 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:25:36 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/6/2003 - "The Nuremberg Trials" - Part I Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 6, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Now that Western Civilization's laws are being more and more perverted and corrupted to cater to the needs and whims of special interest groups, perhaps it brings some clarity to study one crass precedent. Ernst Zundel wrote this essay in the mid-1990s - almost ten years ago - and what it told us of the subjugation of a defeated country, Germany, has haunted me ever since. It's up to you to draw some parallels to what is happening today. This essay comes in two parts: [START] Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die PART I On the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, it is appropriate that I share with my English-speaking readerships a few reflections pertaining to those trials. I'd like to start with a revealing and thought-provoking quote coming from none other than Nahum Goldman, long-time president of the World Jewish Congress, in a book entitled "The Jewish Paradox." "Apart from my encounter with the survivors of the concentration camps after the liberation, I only returned officially to Germany in order to meet Chancellor Adenauer and open negotiations about reparations. These reparations constitute an extraordinary innovation in terms of international law. Until then, when a country lost a war, it paid damages to the victor, but it was a matter between states, between governments. Now for the first time a nation was to give reparations either to ordinary individuals or to Israel, which did not legally exist at the time of Hitler's crimes. All the same, I must admit that the idea did not come from me. "During the war the WJC (World Jewish Congress) had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations." ("The Jewish Paradox," Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, p 122) In the United States, the new specialty channel, "Court TV," is treating the whole of the North American continent to a special about Nuremberg--a television hate fest lasting about 15 hours in total length. Likewise, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Division, recently aired a sequel using static-distorted, crackling old short wave newscasts from the proceedings in Nuremberg in 1946. Once again, newsreel commentators regurgitate ad nauseam all the disgusting and lying testimony of perjurers and con artists, along with the sad "testimony" frequently tortured out of Germany's military and political leaders. I can only call these broadcasts "spreading of hate," which is a crime in Canada under its hate law against an identifiable ethnic group, namely the Germans--under the guise of showing "history." The current German vassal or Quisling state (my apologies to Mr. Quisling!) established by the Allies in post-war Germany--a state whose roots and foundations stem out of those disgusting proceedings of Allied vengeance against a vanquished German people--will not defend its own people against this avalanche of hate and lies, so I will try to do it. It speaks to the tenor of our times that this may be the first time some of my readers may have been exposed to a different historical slant on the Nuremberg Trials. We are so habituated to slander and libel that often we don't even notice it or recognize it as such. We are so used to seeing Germany as the convenient and deserving whipping boy for all its "Nazi crimes" we hardly ever give a thought to its creation--or its Godfathers. Nahum Goldman writes in "The Jewish Paradox", page 123: During a meeting of the World Jewish Congress in London, a Russian Jew called Noah Baron, a wonderful man and great idealist . . . talked me into taking an active part by first of all meeting Adenauer. I was very hesitant at heart, because it was no easy matter for me to talk to the Germans again. And in fact it was eventually my head, and not my heart, which decided me to negotiate. But I laid down a precondition: before I would meet the Chancellor to open negotiations: Adenauer had to make a solemn statement to the Bundestag; he must say that although the Germany of those days was certainly not the Germany which had produced Auschwitz . . . it nevertheless inherited the Nazis' responsibilities, and reparations were its duty; he must add that material reparations could not erase the evil done to the Jews by the Germans. (emphasis added). Let's see now how it all began--and evolved!--this matter of the "Nuremberg Trials" resulting in such guilt and such enormous sums of reparations squeezed out of a defeated country, Germany, over the last 50 years. When we think of the Nuremberg trials, we think of Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen, Dachau--places that the Allies "liberated" and where they "found those skeletons"--which yielded those much-exploited and useful photographic backdrops to justify what was to follow ever since. Guilt, expertly used, is a terrible weapon, a powerful tool and also a handsome cash cow. There was, in fact, a policy and program locked in place to punish Germany for alleged war time crimes which was planned and implemented long before the "crimes" of Nazi Germany were "revealed" via newsreels and sensationalized headlines to a stunned, shuddering, horrified world. There are millions of words, and tens of thousands of books, which have been written about the Nuremberg proceedings in response to these alleged crimes--publications in all kinds of languages, all parroting the post-war Allied propaganda and borrowing its footnotes from each other. A lie repeated six million times, however, does not become the truth by mere repetition. This essay will inspect the pre-conditions and the reasons for the lie--one of which was that Nuremberg and those disgusting proceedings turned out to be the midwives of the Holocaust propaganda. The generations who have grown into adulthood since the end of the Second World War have been allowed little chance to look at the Nuremberg trials critically. They have not been allowed access, for instance, to information showing what some important people and personalities at the time thought about the whole disgusting process of using ex post facto laws against a virtually defenseless, militarily defeated and militarily occupied former enemy. According to Nahum Goldman, former president of the Jewish World Congress, even during the war plans were being mapped out with great care and cunning and the foundation for the lie was being laid. Long before America agreed to feed its young men into a fratricidal war fought not for American national interests but for the interests of an alien people and a State that did not even then exist, there came into being an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York that cooked up a devilish brew. Writes Goldman in The Jewish Paradox, pages 122-123, addressing this questio= n: The Institute's . . . idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat. That still required belief in the defeat, at the time when it seemed likely that the war in Europe was lost for the Allies, but like Churchill and de Gaulle I kept my faith. I never doubted for a moment, because I knew that Hitler would never manage to moderate himself and that his excesses would draw the Allies into the conflict. According to the Institute's conclusions, the German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore. As we all know and are never allowed to forget, in due time Hitler lost the war. Now it was time to conduct Stalinist type show trials against the defeated German leadership and then hand the world its villains. Was this about "punishment"? Think again! Continues Goldman: The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders. It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When he began to canvass it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court, they took him for a fool. "What did these Nazi officers do that was so unprecedented?" they asked. "You can imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers." We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did not play any great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. (The Jewish Paradox, p 122) What followed next? Total communications control and news manipulation through censorship. After the war was over and Germany had lost, the Allied powers, in effect, by virtue of having established a military government--one might as well call it a military dictatorship, in many ways more restrictive than Adolf Hitler's state had been--had a tight grip on all channels of communications. This fact cannot be overstated. =46rom control and supervision of the mail service to the telegraph and telephone systems to radio stations to book, newspaper and magazine publishing houses, the Allies were fully in charge through a clever "licensing system." Anyone who did not toe the Allied propaganda line lost their license or had their license suspended as punishment. Journalists lost their accreditations. Newspapers lost their already very scarce paper or printer's ink allocations or reduced-rate postal shipping privileges. Additionally, Germany was divided into military occupation zones, which were like mini-states, issuing their own passports, food and fuel as well as clothing and stationary ration cards and coupons. If you wanted to travel in occupied Germany from one zone to another in the immediate postwar years, you had to explain to the local military authorities in a written request why you wanted to travel to another zone, whom you wanted to see, and where you intended to stay. You had to request ration coupons for the period of your absence. There were other bureaucratic, for the Nuremberg defense team extremely inconvenient restrictions as well--some by design, some by default. Many trains didn't run on schedule or not at all for lack of coal. Most buildings were unheated. The populace starved. The country was largely without men. There were ruins wherever you looked. There was misery everywhere--more misery than there had ever been during the bitterly fought war. I find in my conversations and interviews and even during my court cases that judges, prosecutors and even defense lawyers have not the foggiest idea what life was really like for the defense teams in Nuremberg in 1946-1949. Today's generation, brainwashed by the high-tech razzle-dazzle of the O.J. Simpson media-feeding frenzy and image glut-out, has not a clue under what circumstances the German defense lawyers worked. Not a clue! Furthermore, I suspect that the cynical generation of money-grabbing, self-promoting attorneys, prosecutors and judges of today don't give a damn about what was the horrible truth and the reality then. Nonetheless, some of these things must be recorded for history's sake. Imagine if you told the occupation powers you wanted to go to Nuremberg to testify in defense of Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrunner, G=F6ring, Streicher or military leaders like Keitel, Jodl, D=F6nitz, Raeder or others! If the military man to whom you applied for permission was a Jew in the uniform of Russia, =46rance, America or England, imagine the response! Would he not think the German applicant was still a "Nazi lover" intent on additional "mischief"? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how many people would shy away from getting politically involved as defense witnesses or experts after having just survived a brutal war, horrendous bombing raids and the raping and plundering hordes of the self-appointed "liberators." Who would choose voluntarily to expose himself to arrest, beatings, torture etc., considering the circumstances? It is remarkable that there were defense witnesses at all who came forward and tried to help those hapless prisoners in Nuremberg. There are instances of the defense lawyers having located and convinced crucial defense witnesses to testify who were being held as prisoners in Allied prison camps, only to find them--convenient for the prosecution!-- getting "lost" in transfers, "lost" long enough until the proceedings had passed the point where their testimony could have been of use to the defense. These defense lawyers themselves worked against almost insurmountable odds. They sat in cold, wet, bombed-out basements of half-ruined houses with boarded-up windows, working in overcoats, writing with stiffened fingers, wearing hats, scarves and gloves to guard themselves against the cold and creeping dampness, trying to write some text and formulate some argument so that a client, who was daily vilified in the press and on radio, in the news reels and on Armed =46orces radio as a despicable monster and a criminal with no human traits, might get a semblance of a defense in those nightmarish, Kafkaesque proceedings called the Nuremberg Trials. Those were truly desperate times for the Germans! The defense was hampered by lack of staff, space, typewriters and ribbons and even carbon paper as well as photocopying facilities and paper supplies. Remember that, in 1945, a photocopy meant exactly what it said. A photograph had to be taken using special line-film. A negative had to be developed and dried. This, in turn, had to be projected by means of an enlarger onto light-sensitive photographic paper in a dark room, which had then to be developed using chemicals not easily available and electric drum dryers using up precious electricity to dry the prints. (Electricity was rationed severely to approximately two hours every day, with only so many kilowatt allowed per person.) Try to put yourself in the defense lawyers' or in this case, the whole German defense teams' place, when two dozen lawyers, defending a great number of different clients, are handed a 30, 50, 100 or 200 page document by the prosecuion--often this was the only set of a document for all the lawyers!--and you had a limited time till court day to study, analyze, weigh the charges, look for potentially exonerating witnesses in a bombed-out country where tens of millions were homeless, freezing and starving. The old, still existing phone books and city directories were virtually useless, because telephone service was not yet restored in many places and private people hardly ever got a phone approved by the occupation authorities unless you were "essential"--let's say, like a medical doctor. Now let's look at the defendants' rights to get the lawyer of their choice--a sacred right in most civilized countries. What do you think that meant in those hysterical, lawless days in post-war Germany? Which lawyer could afford to side with a "Nazi monster"? Many years later, my own lawyer has been accused during my own trials in peaceful, democratic Canada for ". . . being too closely associated" with me, the accused, by media commentators, even lawyers and even, occasionally, a judge who showed the intolerance rampant against a vilified accused like me by those in contemporary society who have the fate of accused people in their hands. Imagine what courage it must have taken for those Nuremberg defense lawyers--who also were fathers of children, who were husbands to wives--all glad to have survived the war, all of them trying to build new careers out of the rubble of defeated, devastated and decimated Germany in 1946. It took much more than guts. It took real dedication to a principle and a love of justice few in today's society could claim to have or hold. Let's say you were a lawyer of such heroic proportions. The Allies, more often than not, could declare you a "Nazi" as well, putting you in the class of "criminals," since the Nazi party was declared a "criminal organization" by the conquerors. Most of the mental elite of Germany had been members of the National Socialist Party, and almost all had gone to war and, chances were, had been killed or severely wounded. Those who survived, were really persona non grata. They came back from a devastating war and found themselves not only criminalized but deprived of their civic and human rights by cruel conquerors who all the while kept on prattling incessantly in their propaganda about the wonderful Allied New Order. If, against tremendous odds, you finally found yourself screened, interrogated, and accredited as a lawyer at the Nuremberg trials--what did you face, in fact? Let's take a cold, hard look at this so-called International Military Tribunal. How righteous and noble that sounds! A label like that can hide many a sore. The Nuremberg sore is still running. Here is what Nuremberg was: It was not an international military tribunal at all. It was not even international in composition. The victors instead sat in judgment over the vanquished. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who was then the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Jackson's (the Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg) boss in that role, had this to say while speaking to a reporter for Fortune Magazine, as quoted in: Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, Alpheus Thomas Mason, The Viking Press, page 715: "For your information, but not for publication as coming from me, I would like to advise you that the Supreme Court had nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the Nuremberg Trials, or the governmental action which authorized them. I was not advised of Justice Jackson's participation until his appointment by the Executive was announced in the newspapers. "So far as the Nuremberg trial is an attempt to justify the application of the power of the victor to the vanquished because the vanquished made aggressive war," (Stone) explained, "I dislike extremely to see it dressed up with a false facade of legality. The best that can be said for it is that it is a political act of the victorious States, which may be morally right, as was the sequestration of Napoleon about 1815. But the allies in that day did not feel it necessary to justify it by an appeal to nonexistent legal principles. As a practical matter, it seems to me that the difficulties and uncertainties of saying who is the aggressor under the conditions which produce modern war should make us hesitate to lay down for the future a principle which would always require that question to be answered by the victor. "All wars are in fact aggressive. The real source of authority is `the powers of the victors over the vanquished.' "It would not disturb me greatly," he wrote, "if that power were openly and frankly used to punish the German leaders for being a bad lot, but it disturbs me some to have it dressed up in the habiliments of the Common Law and the constitutional safeguards to those charged with crime. It looks as though we were committing ourselves to the proposition that the outcome of every war must be that the leaders of the vanquished must be executed by the victors." [END] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Conclusion in tomorrow's ZGram From irimland@zundelsite.org Mon Apr 7 16:26:19 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:26:19 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/7/2003 - "The Nuremberg Trials" - Part II Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 7, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Continued from "Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die" / Conclusion: [START] Judge Jackson, handling the prosecution of Nuremberg's most important trials, was a man with presidential ambitions who needed a high profile carved out of a self-serving stage: The Nuremberg Trials were to be the launching pad of his presidential race. The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant African, Asian or Latin American countries. American civilian judges to a large extent made up the core of the Allied judges--not military career officers, who might have had some understanding and compassion for what the military leaders and the civilian government under extreme war time conditions lived through. They could have undoubtedly had a greater appreciation of why some of the wartime measures were undertaken by Germany in the desperate days of the war. The "liberal country club"-experienced set of small town American judges could not. Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war against the Germans by other means long after the shooting had stopped--not by bombs and bullets but this time by falsely diagnosing psychologists or, worse, by giving torturers a free hand: cynical and brutal investigators who could, and frequently did, mistreat, beat, whip, starve, suffocate and mutilate their prisoners into giving confessions and statements which were as cruelly extracted as were the confessions from witches during the disgusting witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages. The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only by Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, a man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser alleged Nazi war criminals after the war. Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from European living space because they considered them harmful to the war effort and to Western European civilization. Here is how the article described the lot that came to post-war Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice Wennerstrum's eyes, after he quit in disgust: "If I had known seven months ago what I know today," (Wennerstrum) told friends as he packed to leave for America, "I would never have come here. . . The initial war crimes trial here was judged and prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of the time, effort and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies and placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany. "What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals," the judge continued, "applies to the prosecution. The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident. "The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars. The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed. the Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices. . . (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948) In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them Jews--as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech, even in radio broadcasts and newsreels. Most of the evidence in the trials was "documentary," selected by the Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The document selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to release or to hide and/or destroy any documents which did not fit their post-war strategy or plans at Nuremberg. The Allies admitted elsewhere that their propaganda Ministries and Intelligence Services had previously forged Nazi stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports, orders, ID cards etc. which fooled the Nazis many times because they were so perfect and over which the Allied propagandists gloat to this day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to think what these same Allied Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of documents could do now with all the captured genuine German document-producing facilities, the captured type writers, rubber stamps and tons of letter heads of all sizes and description and of any National Socialist organization you care to mention. Even setting aside questionable "documentary" evidence, let's look at some of the accused's "testimony"--how it was extracted, and what it really means. Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal stand certain words: "Genocide" "Gas chamber." "Six million." These words, and the value judgment concepts they connote, were derived largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz. Rudolf Hoess was the Allies' most important witness to the "Holocaust." His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, as well as by the press. It was his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the claim of the ". . . extermination of millions of people by gas at Auschwitz." Hoess's "confession" is heavily relied upon by historians like Raul Hilberg and others as a primary documentary source to this day. It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous "atrocities," and he also confirmed the "truth" under oath of an affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it, he confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of victims. The affidavit, by the way, was in English, a language he did not speak or understand, according to family members. We now know from the book "Legions of Death" that Rudolf Hoess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter until he gave this very devastating "testimony" and "affidavit" used by the Allies propagandists ever since. You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by Rupert Butler, published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235: At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation. No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's tone was deliberately low-key and conversational. He began mildly: "I understand your husband came to see you as recently as last night." Frau Hoess merely replied: "I haven't seen him since he absconded months ago" Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: "You know that isn't true." Then all at once his manner had changed and he was shouting: "If you don't tell us, we'll turn you over to the Russians and they'll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go to Siberia." It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information. When they found Hoess, here is how the capture played out. Clarke, one of the participants, recalls it vividly: "He was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair of silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch (flashlight) into his mouth." Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms. Clarke yelled: "What is your name?" With each answer of "Franz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was. The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Hoess. The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse." A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke's car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep. Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine." . . . The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him. This statement, tortured and terrorized out of him, was the one we are all familiar with--the "proof" for the so-called "gassing of the Jews." Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is a totally unreliable witness--and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration camp "Wolzek" which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died of disease, for a total dead of three million. The Toronto Sun of July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million. The Washington Post, on the same date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted from an article by Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following: Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million. The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp. . . The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of Hitler's final solution." Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, saying: "It sounds shocking and strange." . . . Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were correct. "The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death camp's Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated." . . . But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives. A most convenient excuse! In 1989 I organized a write-in campaign to persuade the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few months afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these all-important documents to the Red Cross, which showed in minute detail why people had died in Auschwitz, the cause and time of death, their birth, address etc. 74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of Poles and members of other nationalities. The incredibly shrinking Holocaust! The "millions" that we have heard about for half a century and that we hear and read about still today all started with the "testimony" beaten out of poor Hoess on that horrible night in defeated Germany. Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent Vanity Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning stated that ". . . Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole." (Holocaust Revisionism Source Book, 1994, p. 1) But does that invalidate the Revisionist claims or their strategy? Not at all. On the contrary. After all, Hoess's testimony was used as the skeleton on which the entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings was constructed in the first place. Revisionists have concentrated on Hoess precisely because he is probably the most important source for Holocaust historians' conclusions on and exaggerations about the Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the "Bible" of the "Holocaust," The Destruction of the European Jews, (Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition, 1985 ) relies on Hoess's testimony heavily, and Hoess was the primary witness relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment regarding the "extermination of the Jews," even though he told the court of having been savagely tortured. What's more, Hoess's treatment by the Allies and the total unreliability of his "evidence" are not unusual. We don't know how many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated, since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was expunged from the record. (Read this again! Material damaging to the Allies was expunged from the Nuremberg trial transcripts!) An example is Streicher's testimony. Streicher was reported in the London Times as having testified that he was tortured, whipped, spat on, and forced to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, The Times, April 27, 1946). His testimony was later expunged from the record of the trial with the active participation of the prosecution, the president of the Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer! Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg prisoners, however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter Sauckel's reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the transcript. During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified that he signed a document, even though he did not know what was in that document, after his family of 10 children was threatened with deportation to Russia. And finally, it must not be forgotten that this is the only judicial proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where there was no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review of the proceedings or any verdicts that this so-called international military tribunal arrived at. Their judgments over the leadership of Europe's most populous state, against whom they had just fought a murderous, near genocidal war, were final and deadly. Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these days. And for what? The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you in his astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to the mother-of-all-frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the agreement Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German Quisling State's first Allied-appointed chancellor, ". . . the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion. . . Without the German reparations that started coming through during its first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure: All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industry . . . and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year . . . In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the principle. (emphasis added) Not anywhere you look! After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the hyperbole and smoke screens which surrounds them, it can be put quite bluntly: The Allies fought a war on foreign shores--in part to establish the State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand to political ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the Nuremberg trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing of Israel. So as to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel became accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and executioners--all in one! The Allies supplied the "experts" who sifted through the German documents, which were all totally in Allied control, highlighting incriminating documents, discarding exonerating evidence. These investigators were told only to "find" incriminating documents against the hapless accused, as I was told by the American scholar Charles Weber, Ph.D., who had been one of these Allied researchers, and who testified at my own trials. These researchers were told to ignore the documents that might have spared the lives of the accused German leaders. When all was said and done, there was not even an appeal. U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in the Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746 : "Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he remarked. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Wed Apr 9 01:02:03 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:02:03 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/8/2003 - "Additional thoughts regarding the last Zundel hearing" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 8, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Here are some additional observations, courtesy of Dr. Robert Countess, who was at the last immigration hearing and who saw how biased the entire procedure turned out to be. This one, too, is for the historical record: [START] What follows are some brief annotations I made this morning that could be useful for you to share with Ernst in case I return to join the defense team. 1. The Crown's case against EZ has so far been characterized by one word: superficiality at every major point. 2. All adduced "evidence" is at bottom NON-evidence insofar as convincing a reasonable, educated audience. 3. The Crown based its case on "suspicion"--a highly subjective concept; each of us has SUSPECTED someone over the years of having done such and such, only to learn later that we were quite in error. 4. If the Minister can prevent bail or have someone arrested on the basis of the Minister's subjective feeling or intuition of SUSPICION and without tangible evidence, what safety is there in Canada for the masses or for the minorities? For SUSPICION to be taken seriously after, say, a 24 hour arrest ON SUSPICION OF SO AND SO, there must be tangible evidence-say, a smoking gun and gunshot powder on the suspects hand. 5. The Crown case against EZ is really NOT different from residents of the USSR who could be arrested and sent to a GuLAG for life JUST BECAUSE STALIN S U S P E C T E D the person was thinking or intending to do something against "national security." 6. "National Security" was not defined by the Crown on March 31st and April 1st,; yet it was the centerpiece of the effort to keep EZ from being allowed out on bail. Next time, we must insist that "NS" be defined in some objective way, plus DEMANDING that the Crown demonstrate that EZ not only INTENDS to jeopardize Canada's "NS" but also possesses the ABILITY to do so. [Illustration: I may INTEND to dunk a basketball into the net but if I LACK the height and strength and spring in my legs to accomplish it, the Crown would look utterly ridiculous in charging me with the "crime" of INTENDING to dunk a basketball.] 7. Does Canadian jurisprudence agree with the USA view of an accused being INNOCENT until proven GUILTY or is it the other way around? The big difference has to do with the Crown being required to PROVE its case and EZ only defending himself against the procedure; if the latter, EZ is legally guilty as charged and then has to demonstrate his innocence-a much more dangerous situation for the accused. 8. The Crown's attorney MacIntosh compromised himself irreparably on April 1st at the break period, around 1530 hours when I personally observed him in the hallway whispering into the left ear of the CJC [CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS] agent. Since the CJC is a know anti-Zundel and anti-FREE SPEECH fanatical and radical organization, MacIntosh's unprofessional behavior renders him no longer suitable to represent the Crown Minister in these proceedings. MacIntosh has NO objectivity as a result of this seemingly secretive activity. (...) 9. In Western jurisprudence [but not in the East or Oriental world], punishment should fit the crime. EZ has NO record of felonious crimes and NO record of flight from bail or court dates and the charge against him is an administrative charge in the USA, not a felony. In Canada, he has applied for Political Asylum, thus NOT a charge but a positive action on his part wherein he seeks the GOOD offices of the elected Ministers of the Dominion and the Administrative Law Judge [or whatever Murranick is called]. HENCE, to keep EZ in a solitary confinement and bring him to hearings in leg irons and handcuffs and prison orange is so egregiously INCOMPATIBLE with his positive action to seek Political Asylum that ANY reasonable observer with a university education can judge that the Crown has punished a man outrageously for appealing to the positive good of the Dominion to hear and examine his pleading for asylum. (...) 10. There has been NO evidence provided from the USA's FBI that is negative; one can be certain that the Crown has in fact been in touch with the FBI and it might be good to learn from any FBI office and agents if a Crown agent traveled to the USA to speak with officials and examine and copy ANY relevant files. 11. The Crown has obviously NO interest in the IN-justice of EZ's arrest without a warrant nor in the strange INS actions about the meeting notices and the attorney's failures. Instead, the Crown insists that EZ flagrantly disregarded US INS law. The point by point details presented by Dr. I. Rimland show the Crown to be lying. [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Thu Apr 10 02:02:55 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:02:55 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/9/2003 - "All the news that's fit to print..." Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 9, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: If you read these excerpts, titled "In-House Memos On Television News Presentations", please ask yourself what instructions regarding Revisionists or revisionist content might have been given to editors across the land: [START] 4-9-3 Part 1 It has long been the strong belief of many Americans that their print and television media is subject to certain government oversight and, finally, control. Recently, a mid-level executive of one of the three major American television networks sent on over 1500 pages of memos from the corporate offices of his network in New York to the head of their television news division. These memos contain a multitude of instructions concerning the presentation of national and international news for the network's viewers. Corporate is obviously subject to the opinions of various pressure groups, to include those of official Washington and the Jewish community. It would be impossible to show all of these revealing documents but selections are certainly possible. What is not possible, obviously, is to reveal either the name of the conscience-stricken media executive nor the company that employs him. These comments, therefore, can be accepted or rejected by the reader as they see fit. If the shoe fits, however, wear it. (March 22) ...it is not conducive to maintaining an overall neutrality in the Palestine uprisings to show any pictures of the American peacenik that was run over by the Israeli army bulldozer. This is only to be mentioned as a "tragic accident" for which the IDF "is truly saddened." (Feb 10) ...It is not permitted at this point to use or refer to any film clips, stills or articles emanating from any French source whatsoever. (Feb 26) It is expected that coverage of the forthcoming Iraqi campaign will be identical with the coverage used during Desert Storm. Shots of GIs must show a mixed racial combination...any interviews must reflect the youthful and idealistic, not the cynical point of view...the liberation of happy, enthusiastic Iraqis can be best shown by filming crowds of cheering citizens waving American flags. Also indicated would be pictures of photogenic GIs fraternizing with Iraqi children and handing them food or other non-controversial presents...of course, pictures of dead US military personnel are not to be shown and pictures of dead Iraqi soldiers should not show examples of violent death...also indicated would be brief interviews with English-speaking Iraqi citizens praising American liberation efforts...all such interviews must be vetted by either the White House or Pentagon before public airing. (March 12) At this point in time, reference to North Korean military threats must be played down entirely. The Iraqi Freedom campaign has to be concluded in the public mind before proceeding with the next assault on the Evil Axis. (March 26) US alliances with the Turkish/Iraqi Kurdish tribes should be played down. This is considered a very sensitive issue with the Turks and American arming and support of the Kurds could create a severe backlash in Ankara...Kurds should be depicted as 'Iraqi =46reedom Fighters' and not identified as Kurds. (March 2) ...further references to the religious views of the President are to be deleted... (March 15) photo opportunities of the President and members of his cabinet, especially Secretary Rumsfeld, with enthusiastic GIs=B7. (March 19) No mention, repeat, no mention, of Palestinian suicide bombers during the Iraqi operation... (March 25) ...no mention of either Wolfowitz or Pearle should be made at the present time. (March 10) ...pro-Government rallies are to be given the fullest coverage...if anti-Government demonstrations are shown, it is desired to stress either a very small number of "eccentrics" or shots of social misfits; i.e., with beards, tattoos, physical deformities, etc. Pro-Government supporters should be seen as clean cut with as many well-groomed subjects as possible...subjects should stress complete support for the President's programs and especially support for American military units en route to combat...also interviews with photogenic family members of participating GIs stressing loyalty and affection=B7 American flags are always a good prop in the background... =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Controlling the News - Part 2 http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a280.htm (March 30) Friction between Secretary Rumsfeld and senior military field commanders in Iraq are to be strictly minimalized and used only when impossible to avoid...the Secretary's point of view on all military matters is to be stressed...important to bring out his reputation as a 'man who shakes things up' and a brilliant innovator. (March 31) ...no discussion of high-level rumors about pre-emptive tactical nuclear strikes against North Korean missile, "hard" artillery positions opposite Seoul or key North Korean leadership or military commands is to be mentioned. It must be stressed that the North Korean situation is viewed as "serious but not critical" by unnamed 'senior U.S. military leaders.' (March 31) ...no mention of PRC strong objections to US pre-emptive actions against North Korea...a short summary of the President's refusal to 'enter into any kind of negotiations' with the North Korean government...background report on the irrational and anti-democratic forces in North Korea - the desire of South Korea's officials to maintain a close relationship with their American military protectors...no discussion of anti-US demonstrations in Seoul. These can be routinely dismissed as 'radical students who are not supported by the new liberal and strongly pro-American President.' April 4) ...sharply rising unemployment numbers, this should be countered with official interviews stressing that the unemployment situation is now stabilizing and expected to fall soon. (March 30) Because of the seriousness of the spread of SARS, actual figures of either the infected or of any deaths from local medical facilities must be carefully vetted via the CDC press information office in Atlanta. From the highest level, it is imperative that the American public not panic over the very rapid spread of this disease. Speculations of the actual nature of SARS is not under any circumstances to be permitted. Keep in mind the currently in- place rules following the outbreak of 'Legionnaires Disease.' (April 4) ...a discussion of French desecrations of American and British war graves in France is to receive specific notice. Also, damage to the 9/11 memorial in Paris is to be included. No pictures of swastikas or other defamatory and anti-Administration graffiti are to be shown. French official apologies are permitted...no comments equating the President with Hitler will be made...and the invasion of Iraq may not be compared with Hitler's invasion of Poland, and such allegations now being made extensively in offshore media coverage are not to receive any attention. The Iraqi campaign is officially a campaign by a democratic United States against ruthless cruelty and oppression. (April 5) ...comments appearing in the left-wing British Guardian about the occupation and administration of a conquered (read "liberated and newly democratized") Iraq by American military personnel are to be ignored. 'Pacification, liberation, freedom and gratitude towards US forces,' and the President are to be stressed. (March 29) The President's goal, to achieve oil autarchy by the United States, is suggested as the subject for a future series. Congressional denial of drilling in various environmentally 'sensitive' areas may be derided as foolish misunderstanding of America's vital oil needs and catering to the radical environmentalist groups. The interdiction of oil shipments to the United States from Venezuela and Nigeria are not to be commented upon. The attitude of Chavez towards the United States is also considered a non-topic. He was removed from power once and it can happen a second time. File footage of large crowds of distressed and unhappy Venezuelans should be prepared against the time he is removed from power again. (April 4) If possible, pictures of the President with a book or, better, actually reading, are suggested. Commentary about his extensive reading habits...stress important historical and economic works. (April 5) Presidential visits to military units in the United States are to receive full coverage and to extend past the usual slot time...spots of especially warm receptions are considered very important. (March 31) ...at pro-government rallies, signs showing: 'Antiwar' (or 'Protestors') =3D 'Terrorist' should be given specific coverage. (April 1) It has been suggested that something be worked up showing that, unlike Vietnam, America's college students support the President fully and are not involved in the anti-war movements. It is considered advisable to blame the 'former hippie-type' professors for any campus anti-war sentiment. Students could be shown eagerly joining their ROTC chapters or even holding pro-Administration demonstrations. http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a273.htm [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Apr 11 01:16:14 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:16:14 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/10/2003 - "Latest Zundel Transcripts now available" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 10, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Today's ZGram is brief, bringing you two items: 1. - The transcripts of the two-day Immigration Detention Hearing, March 31 - April 1, are now on-line at www.zundelsite.org Each transcript is about 100 single-spaced pages long. 2. - A glimpse into medieval prison conditions in Canada below, unworthy of a so-called "democratic" country: [START] Canadian Association for Free Expression Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 Ph: 905-897-7221; FAX: 905-277-3914 Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director April 8, 2003 Hon. Bob Runciman, MPP Ministry of Public Safety and Security 18th Floor, 25 Grosvenor Street Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1Y6 BY FAX: : (416) 325-6067 Dear Mr. Runciman: I'm the legal representative for publisher Ernst Zundel, who is currently being held under Section 58.1.c. of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the Niagara Detention Centre. I have serious concerns about the way Mr. Zundel is being treated. He's a 64-year old pacifist. He's on medication. He has been incarcerated briefly during several previous encounters with the Canadian,. U.S. and German legal systems. He has never been a flight risk. The authorities at the Niagara Detention Centre are keeping him in segregation -- solitary lock-up. Because of his controversial views and age, this may well be for his own good. However, my concerns focus on his being denied newspapers or other reading material. Many prisons have libraries. Mr. Zundel is not being incarcerated for any crime he's committed. He hasn't been convicted of anything in Canada. Furthermore, he isn't even here by choice: he was deported from the U.S. Basic decency and human dignity would seem to dictate giving him access to reading material. He's trying to prepare for a series of complicated legal hearings in Canada and the U.S. Yet, he's denied the use of a pen. He must scribble with pencil stubs. This is disgraceful. I've tried to learn whether your department issues a statement of prisoners' rights.Repeated calls today failed to satisfy my equest for such a document or statement. Seeking your help in this matter, I remain, Sincerely yours, Paul Fromm [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Apr 11 23:18:05 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:18:05 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/11/2003 - "Zundel's Crimes of Opinion" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 11, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: A meek pro-Zundel commentary for your Zundel files: [START] Zundel's Crimes of Opinion by Pierre Lemieux On February 5, Ernst Z=FCndel was arrested at the Tennessee home he shared with his American wife. His crime: allegedly overstaying his visitor's visa, according to immigration cops. He was handcuffed, whisked away, and detained by U.S. authorities for two weeks. He is now barred from the U.S. for twenty years. On February 19, after two weeks of detention in the U.S., he was deported to Canada, and has been detained in an Ontario jail since then. It is very difficult to defend Z=FCndel, despite the fact that the only crimes he has ever been charged with are crimes of opinion. To defend Z=FCndel's freedom of speech, I submitted a piece to the Globe and Mail (Toronto) op-ed editor, asking if he was interested; he very politely replied with only one word: "No." Z=FCndel, 63, is a German citizen who lived legally in Canada from 1958 to 2001. During that period, the federal government turned down Z=FCndel's requests for Canadian citizenship. The feds now want to deport him to his country of origin, because "he financially and ideologically supports militant white supremacist/neo-Nazi groups."[1] Z=FCndel is a "revisionist" who claims (if I understand correctly) that the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis is much lower than usually claimed, and that there was no official Nazi Holocaust strategy. In the late '80s, Z=FCndel was convicted of the old Criminal Code offense of "[publishing] a statement, tale or news that [one] knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest." Since Z=FCndel did not think that his opinions were false, he was actually prosecuted for crimes of opinion. Indeed, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. Z=FCndel has never been charged with hate propaganda per se, i.e., "communicating statements, other than in a private conversation, [that] wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group," a crime that appeared in the Canadian Criminal Code in 1979. But this is obviously what the state thinks he is guilty of. The right to defend unpopular, offensive, and even false opinions has been very much part of the Western liberal tradition. On the contrary, the Nazi barbarians were not exactly great defenders of freedom of speech: for instance, article 23 of the 1920 program of the Nazi party called for a "legal assault against conscious political lies."[2] The standard arguments for free speech are - or perhaps were - well known. We cannot know the truth value of a hypothesis if its opponents are forbidden to challenge it, or if its proponents are not allowed to defend it. Most of an individual's beliefs, including his scientific beliefs, are justified by his perception that they have emerged unscathed from the free confrontation of ideas and the unrestrained search for truth. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote: "Strange it is that men think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side."[3] Around the Great Hall of Hart House at the University of Toronto, the famous words of John Milton are inscribed: "When a City shall be as it were besieged and blocked about, her navigable river infested, inroads and incursions round, defiance and battle oft rumoured to be marching up even to her walls and suburb trenches =8A then the people, or the greater part, more than at other times, wholly taken up with the study of highest and most important matters to be reformed, should be disputing, reasoning, reading, inventing, discoursing, even to a rarity and admiration, things not before discoursed or written of."[4] There are many cases where expressions of opinion are, or can be considered to be, hate propaganda. Libraries and bookstores are full of statements by famous authors that fall foul of hate laws. Just think about Baudelaire calling the Belgians "animals," "molluscs," and "civilized monkeys." Would Nietzsche, Marx, or the Surrealists pass the test of hate literature? What about Franz Fanon, a Marxist prophet of decolonization, who preached violence against the "race" of the colonizers in North Africa? If history is any guide, it would be na=EFve to assume that hate legislation will only be enforced against unpopular lunatics. Indeed, Canadians have heard calls to use hate laws in linguistic or ethnic politics. The range of political opinions that can be construed as inciting hatred is almost indefinitely extensible. Hate laws, we are told, are meant to protect social peace. But history shows that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and individual liberty in general, are the most efficient social mechanism ever discovered to promote tolerance and peace. Censorship is one of the surest ways to frustration, victimization, political confrontation, intolerance, and violence. Another argument for hate laws is that na=EFve citizens may fall prey to false information or propaganda, and that the state must protect them against their own gullibility. This is a very disturbing argument, which considers citizens as infants, and wards of wise politicians and bureaucrats. Many so-called hate propagandists are stupid people whose political ideas I would not want to be associated with. But then, so what? Is it a crime to be stupid? And who decides who is? Z=FCndel's website rails against "extreme individualism," and the "international trade cartels that shutter American industries and shatter family lives and entire communities". It promotes populism against "unconscionable plutocrats whose only loyalty is to their pocketbook." But there is something for everybody on the "Zundelsite." And, like the Fuehrer himself, Z=FCndel and his friends are not the most consistent of ideologues - except in their attacks on the Jewish scapegoat.[5] Perhaps Z=FCndel's neo-Nazi sympathies show up most clearly when he talks about smoking. Today's tobacco industry spokesmen, he writes, "should have consulted the Fuehrer." He explains, approvingly, that "Hitler youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields, etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler." I am not necessarily suggesting that Z=FCndel would make a good consultant for Health Canada or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but that, however repulsive his opinions are, he should not be persecuted for expressing them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ References 1. See also my "In Defense of Hate Literature (Sort of)" (London: Libertarian Alliance, Political Notes No. 137, 1997); reproduced at http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artspe.html. 2. Maurice Torrelli and Ren=E9e Baudouin, Les droits de l'homme et les libert=E9s publiques par les textes (Montr=E9al: Presses de l'Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec, 1972), p. 63. My translation from the French version; underlines in the original. 3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1977), p. 20-21; available at http://www.bartleby.com/130/ (visited March 29, 2003). 4. John Milton, Areopagitica (1644) (Wheeling, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1951), pp. 46-47; available at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/areopagitica.html (visited March 29, 2003). 5. The story is told by Z=FCndel's wife at http://zundelsite.org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pierre Lemieux is co-director of the Economics and Liberty Research Group at the Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec in Outaouais, and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (California). E-mail: PL@pierrelemieux.org. From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Apr 13 01:18:42 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:18:42 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/12/2003 - "Intellectual terrorism" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 12, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: For your weekend reading from one of the younger Revisionist intellectuals: [START] Intellectual terrorism By DR. TOMISLAV SUNIC The modern thought police is hard to spot, as it often seeks cover under soothing words such as "democracy" and "human rights." While each member state of the European Union likes to show off the beauties of its constitutional paragraph, seldom does it attempt to talk about the ambiguities of its criminal code. In June and November, 2002, the European Commission held poorly publicized meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg whose historical importance regarding the future of free speech could overshadow the recent launching of the new euro currency. At issue is the enactment of new European legislation whose objective is to counter the growing suspicion about the viability of the multiracial European Union. Following the events of September 11, 2001, and in the wake of certain veiled anti-Israeli comments in some American and European journals, the European Commission is aiming to exercise maximum damage control, via maximum thought control. If the new bill on "hate crime" sponsored by the Commission passes through the European parliament and is applied by the EU Council of Ministers, the judiciary of any individual EU member state in which this alleged "verbal offense" has been committed will no longer carry legal weight. Legal proceedings and "appropriate" punishment will become the prerequisite of the European Union's supra-national courts. When the law is adopted, it will automatically become law in all European Union member states, from Greece to Belgium, from Denmark to Portugal. Pursuant to the law's ambiguous wording of the concept of "hate crime" or "racial incitement," anyone convicted of such an ill-defined verbal offense in country "A" of the European Union can be fined or imprisoned in country "B" of the European Union. (In reality, this is already the case.) The enactment of this EU law would be matical construct, it is now easy to place any journalist or professor in legal difficulty if he questions the writing of modern history or the rising number of non-European immigrants. In England and America the legal tradition presupposes that everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. By way of contrast, in Germany a legal tradition of long standing presupposes that everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That difference may underlie Germany's adoption of stringent laws against alleged or real Holocaust denial. In December 2002, during a visit to Germany, Jewish-American historian Norman Finkelstein called upon the German political class to cease being a victim of "Holocaust industry" pressure groups. He remarked that such a reckless German attitude only provokes hidden anti-Semitic sentiments. As was to be expected, nobody reacted to Finkelstein's remarks, for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic themselves. Instead, the German government agreed last year to pay, courtesy of its taxpayers, a further share of 5 billion euros for the current fiscal year to some 800,000 Holocaust survivors. Such silence is the price paid for intellectual censorship in democracies. When discussion of certain topics is forbidden, the climate of frustration starts growing, followed by individual terrorist violence. Can any Western nation that inhibits the free expression of diverse political views - however aberrant they may be - call itself a democracy? Although America prides itself on its First Amendment, free speech in higher education and the media is subject to didactic self-censorship. Expression of politically incorrect opinions can ruin the careers or hurt the grades of those naive enough to rely on their First Amendment rights. Among tenured professors in the United States it is becoming more common to give passing grades to many minority students in order to avoid legal troubles with their peers, at best, or to avoid losing their job, at worst. In a similar vein, according to the Fabius-Gayssot law, proposed by a French Communist deputy and adopted in 1990, a person publicly uttering doubts about modern antifascist victimology risks serious fines or imprisonment in France. A number of writers and journalists in France and Germany have committed suicide, lost their jobs, or asked for political asylum in Syria, Sweden, or America. Similar repressive measures have recently been enacted by multicultural Australia, Canada, and Belgium. Many East European nationalist politicians, particularly from Croatia, wishing to visit their expatriate countrymen in Canada or Australia are denied visas by those countries on the grounds of their alleged extremist nationalistic views. For the time being, Russia and other post-communist countries are not subject to the repressive thought control that exists in the United States or the European Union. Yet, in view of the increasing pressure from Brussels and Washington, that may change. Contrary to widespread beliefs, state terror, i.e., totalitarianism, is not only a product of violent ideology espoused by a handful of thugs. Civic fear, feigned self-abnegation, and intellectual abdication create the ideal ground for the totalitarian temptation. Intellectual terrorism is fueled by a popular belief that somehow things will straighten out by themselves. Growing social apathy and rising academic self-censorship only boost the spirit of totalitarianism. Essentially, the spirit of totalitarianism is the absence of all spirit. April 10, 2003 Dr. Tomislav Sunic is a writer and former political science professor in the United States. His Website may be found at http://www.watermark.hu/doctorsunic. [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Mon Apr 14 01:00:18 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:00:18 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/13/2003 - "The ADL is after Gordon Thomas" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 13, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: More on how the Anti-Defamation League secretly works: [START] Irish best-selling author Gordon Thomas discovers the ADL is preventing his books from being sold at bookstores By Gordon Thomas THE paragraph was short and based on information from NASA and the Israeli's Space Agency. It dealt with the role of Israeli astronaut, Ilon Ramon, one of the crew of the ill-fated Columbia shuttle. This is what I wrote in that paragraph: "Astronaut Ilon Ramon was conducting secret experiments on the Columbia to discover new ways to beat Saddam's threat to use biological and chemical weapons against Israel. For most of his 16 days on board the Columbia, he had been using cameras linked directly to the Israeli Space Agency to study desert dust and wind-drifts emanating from the deserts of Iraq." In a splurge of rage, the New York based Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, through its "Anti-Semitism-International" -- a newsletter rant on the Internet -- accused me of being an "anti-Israel author", and one of those who used "the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster for their own purposes, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and Israel bashers promoting warped conspiracy theories". Abraham H Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's National Director even managed to include me in his all-sweeping diatribe that "even in times of tragedy for the American people, the anti-Semites and hatemongers never let up". There is much, much more, of this demented hysteria in Anti-Semitism-International. IN OVER 50 years of being a published writer, I have never met such a vicious smear. It's all the more incredible for when I first reported from Israel, since the Suez Crisis of 1956, I have been repeatedly praised for my balanced reporting about that country. I co-authored the Academy Award multi-nominated "Voyage of the Damned", a saga of Jewish courage. I arranged for the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC to receive all the research material on this saga. I have lectured widely to Israeli congregations about the pernicious anti-Semitism now rife. I write for a UK newspaper, the Sunday Express, owned by a powerful Jew. I have a huge network of Jewish correspondents and contacts, many of them highly placed in Israel. Would all these good people continue to help me if they thought I was "anti-Israel" or anti-Semitic? That is what makes outlandish, vicious and dangerous labelling by the League so serious, because if they can label me an anti-Semite, then who else can they damage at the whim of the likes of Mr Foxman? People who cannot reply to their ridiculous accusations. The reality is that, what it espouses to defend -- free speech -- the League sets out to stifle it. I had asked them to print a simple apology. My request was ignored. Hence this article. It will, as usual, be widely circulated. It is time that somebody stood up to the bully-boy tactics of the Anti-Defamation League. It is rich and powerful and operates from its exclusive address at 823 United Nations Plaza [New York, NY 10017, USA]. It has been around a long time, since 1913. Its stated aim is "fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudices and bigotry". Noble aims. No one can criticise them. But even so much as dare to ask for the right of reply in their "Anti-Semitism International" -- as I did over its offensive linking of my name with anti-Semitism -- and you are brushed aside. When I protested, I received a somewhat bizarre email from the League's "Corporate Counsel", Jill Kahn Meltzer. She is, of course, a lawyer. And the truth does not always sit easy with attorneys -- whoever they are. She writes: "ADL has not accused you of anti-Semitism. As the press release and the story notes, the conspiracy theories about the shuttle have been circulated by anti-Semites." I wrote the story, and it has been clearly linked as part of the League's attack on anti-Semites. The truth is that in doing so the League has defamed me -- because there's nothing in my story that can be remotely called anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli. But there is more from Ms Meltzer. "While you are within your rights to criticise Israel and theorise about nefarious missions and practices it engages in, it is ADL's right to comment on those writings." Hold it right there, Ms Meltzer. Where is there any criticism about "nefarious missions and practices" in the paragraphs used in Anti-Semitism-International to brand me as an "anti-Semite" and "anti-Israel"? Comment is fair. But to use the language your organisation chose is -- dare I say it -- more in keeping with the smear tactics we all abhorred: those of Joseph Goebbels (left) and his fellow Nazis. I suppose saying that makes me pro-Nazi in the eyes of the League! For some time now I have been aware of the ways the League pounced on those less rich and powerful. It has its followers in all levels of the media: in publishing, in radio and in television. Others who work in those areas have told me of their fear of the League. How it can black-list a book, mobilise an onslaught against a columnist, use its powerful connections in Washington to crush opposition. But until recently, I had no idea just how powerful it could be. The first hint came when I published "Seeds of Fire" (Dandelion Books), a non-fiction book which dealt with the relationship between Israel and China and the role of Mossad in the United States. The book drew favourable reviews from distinguished critics. Carol Adler, my feisty publisher based in Phoenix Arizona, felt optimistic that the book would continue to sell in big numbers. But suddenly, though she could not prove it, she felt the heat. Barnes & Noble, America's largest bookseller, withdrew its support for the book. Why? Because it had just announced it was going to collaborate with the stated aims of the League. Seeds of Fire became among the first victims of what I regard as a pogrom against the truth. Carol Adler had lined up a major promotion to build upon the reviews. Suddenly she found that radio and TV appearances were cancelled on national shows. Now what makes this doubly disturbing is that Seeds of Fire was preceded by another book of mine, "Gideon's Spies". Published by St Martin's Press (New York), it is a detailed account of Mossad [the Israeli secret service] It became a successful documentary for Britain's Channel-4. It has been published, so far, in 55 countries. It is a book that carries the imprimatur of Meir Amit, the former director-general of Mossad. He states: "Thomas tells it like it was -- like it is". The book's jacket is peppered with similar accolades. I do not know at what stage the League became aware of it, but aware they did become. And, despite Mr Amit's unstinted praise, League hatchetmen in the media set to work. The normal standards of reviewing were shunted aside; the charge was that I was an anti-Semite for daring to have shown that Mossad was less than infallible! So the way was paved for the assault on Seeds of Fire. It is still selling on the Internet -- though Carol Adler has indicated she is still having difficulties in collecting my royalties! But still the League was not satisfied. Last year, I co-published (with Martin Dillon) "Robert Maxwell: Israel's Super Spy" (Carroll & Graf, New York). Maxwell, a media tycoon and crook on a grand scale, as well as being a Mossad "asset" was a staunch supporter of the League. The result was that the League mounted a disgraceful attempt to bury the book. Newspapers that support the League -- The New York Times among them -- either refused to review the book or used it, yes, you've got it, to accuse Dillon and myself of anti-Semitism. When we protested about one such scabrous attack in The Washington Post, it refused to publish our letter. When we challenged Alan Dershowitz -- the lawyer who helped to defend O J Simpson -- on misreporting the facts in his "review", we were again refused the right of reply. That said, I must also add that The Times of London, Britain's DailyMail and Daily Mirror showed they will stand up to the League by devoting considerable space to the book. So far, the book is in its sixth UK printing and doing well in the US. But what I complain of about the League is this. No matter how favourably I have handled Israel in the past, the slightest criticism brings down a garbage-can of attacks in its newsletter. In these dangerous times, their Anti-Semitism-International commits what Jews call a blood libel by linking my name and writings with the foul words of Abu Hamza al-Masri, an Islamic Fundamentalist. If it is to continue to make such irresponsible links, then it will demean its aims even further. There is only one way to make the League know how my hundreds of thousands of readers feel about their baseless accusations. It is to make your view known. Why not spare a moment and sent an email to jill.meltzer@adl.org and tell us if she responds. If you feel like calling her, here is the number in the USA: (212) 885 7734. Of if you care to fax her, the number is (212) 953 9691. But try and spare the time to express your feelings. It will be another step in stopping the smears and misrepresentations that are not needed in these troubled times [END] ===== http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?globeintel+118 From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Apr 15 01:38:58 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:38:58 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/14/2003 - "Scalia's Absolutely Wrong About Absolute Rights" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 13, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Another thought-provoking essay by Anthony Gregory, a public policy research intern at The Independent Institute, a non-partisan public policy organization based in Oakland, Calif.: [START] Scalia's Absolutely Wrong About Absolute Rights By Anthony Gregory* Speaking to an audience at Cleveland University, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently said that individual rights can and will likely be curtailed in wartime. In explaining his position, he said that "the Constitution just sets minimums" and that "most of the rights that [Americans] enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." The Iraq war will probably mean that "[rights] protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum." It is true that the Constitution sets minimums, but Scalia's unspecified view of where those minimums reside is unsettling. The Constitution's prescribed minimums of personal freedom emerge from its enumerated maximums of government power. If Scalia were to read the Bill of Rights properly, he would understand that the freedoms Americans currently enjoy do not "go way beyond what the Constitution requires." In the absence of any specific constitutionally authorized government powers that can legally interfere with these freedoms, everyday American liberties are guaranteed under the umbrella of the ninth and tenth amendments, which protect rights not specifically guaranteed in the Constitution and reserve to the states and people all powers not granted to the federal government. Indeed, there are a number of rights mentioned in the Constitution currently not respected in full because the government has acted "beyond what the Constitution requires." Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to a jury trial have each suffered fundamental and severe erosion over the years, and to this day. That Scalia thinks the freedom we currently have is above and beyond the Constitutional mandate is disturbing enough. His prediction that those freedoms will decline in wartime to that mandate - wherever he imagines it to be - is downright terrifying. History shows us what happens when politicians "ratchet" American freedoms "down to the [perceived] constitutional minimum." During the War Between the States, Abraham Lincoln suppressed and closed down over a hundred Union newspapers, implemented conscription, deported political enemies, and suspended habeas corpus, jailing thousands of dissenters without trial. The Supreme Court objected, but Lincoln simply ignored them. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson drafted 2.8 million Americans, the German language was barred from public schools, and Congress passed a number of nasty laws including the Sedition Act, which made simple criticism of the U.S. government, its flag, its military uniforms, or its allies a highly punishable offense. The law was brutally enforced: socialist activist Eugene V. Debs went to prison for ten years for an antiwar speech he made, and movie producer Robert Goldstein was sentenced to ten years in prison for his patriotic movie, Spirit of '76, about the American Revolution, in which he characterized Britain - U.S. ally in World War I, American enemy in the Revolution - in a bad light. The Supreme Court upheld these absurd violations of free speech, explaining that war made such extreme measures necessary. During World War II, the draft returned to take hold of ten million young men. This time, the Supreme Court not only upheld the draft but argued that pretty much anything else the government wanted to do must also be constitutional - because such exercises of power were clearly more benign than the authority to force Americans into combat. American civil liberties hit an absolute low point in World War II when Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which forced 110,000 Japanese Americans into internment camps - an order the court also went along with. Incidentally, conservatives who consider such encroachments on civil liberties to be justified in times of war should look at where their pet nuisances - high taxes and big government - originated. The War Between the States saw the beginning of fiat money and the income tax. World War I brought massive nationalization of industries and maximum income tax rates of 77 percent. World War II meant even more central planning, maximum income tax rates of 94 percent and the birth of Income Tax withholding. The Constitution was established for the exact purpose of restricting the government from interfering with absolute rights, especially in the most precarious of times for liberty, such as wartime. One must wonder whether Scalia could justify all the above mentioned historical examples of erosions of liberty as fitting within the minimums of freedom set in the Constitution, as he reads it. If so, and if any of the new and increasingly freedom-threatening War on Terrorism measures goes to the Supreme Court, hopefully Scalia's eight robed colleagues will have more of a strict constructionist interpretation and understanding of the Constitution. ===== [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Apr 15 21:01:41 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:01:41 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/15/2003 - "A very sad day for civilized man!" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 15, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: This is just so incredibly sad! In war, not only people die. History dies. Memory dies. Germans of all people should know! Robert Fisk recounted what he saw: [START] Books, Priceless Documents Burn In Sacking Of Baghdad By Robert Fisk The Independent - UK 4-14-3 So, yesterday was the burning of books. First came the looters, then the arsonists. It was the final chapter in the sacking of Baghdad. The National Library and Archives - a priceless treasure of Ottoman historical documents, including the old royal archives of Iraq - were turned to ashes in 3,000 degrees of heat. Then the library of Korans at the Ministry of Religious Endowment was set ablaze. I saw the looters. One of them cursed me when I tried to reclaim a book of Islamic law from a boy of no more than 10. Amid the ashes of Iraqi history, I found a file blowing in the wind outside: pages of handwritten letters between the court of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who started the Arab revolt against the Turks for Lawrence of Arabia, and the Ottoman rulers of Baghdad. And the Americans did nothing. All over the filthy yard they blew, letters of recommendation to the courts of Arabia, demands for ammunition for troops, reports on the theft of camels and attacks on pilgrims, all in delicate hand-written Arabic script. I was holding in my hands the last Baghdad vestiges of Iraq's written history. But for Iraq, this is Year Zero; with the destruction of the antiquities in the Museum of Archaeology on Saturday and the burning of the National Archives and then the Koranic library, the cultural identity of Iraq is being erased. Why? Who set these fires? For what insane purpose is this heritage being destroyed? When I caught sight of the Koranic library burning - flames 100 feet high were bursting from the windows - I raced to the offices of the occupying power, the US Marines' Civil Affairs Bureau. An officer shouted to a colleague that "this guy says some biblical [sic] library is on fire". I gave the map location, the precise name - in Arabic and English. I said the smoke could be seen from three miles away and it would take only five minutes to drive there. Half an hour later, there wasn't an American at the scene - and the flames were shooting 200 feet into the air. There was a time when the Arabs said that their books were written in Cairo, printed in Beirut and read in Baghdad. Now they burn libraries in Baghdad. In the National Archives were not just the Ottoman records of the Caliphate, but even the dark years of the country's modern history, handwritten accounts of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, with personal photographs and military diaries,and microfiche copies of Arabic newspapers going back to the early 1900s. But the older files and archives were on the upper floors of the library where petrol must have been used to set fire so expertly to the building. The heat was such that the marble flooring had buckled upwards and the concrete stairs that I climbedhad been cracked. The papers on the floor were almost too hot to touch, bore no print or writing, and crumbled into ash the moment I picked them up. Again, standing in this shroud of blue smoke and embers, I asked the same question: why? So, as an all-too-painful reflection on what this means, let me quote from the shreds of paper that I found on the road outside, blowing in the wind, written by long-dead men who wrote to the Sublime Porte in Istanbul or to the Court of Sharif of Mecca with expressions of loyalty and who signed themselves "your slave". There was a request to protect a camel convoy of tea, rice and sugar, signed by Husni Attiya al-Hijazi (recommending Abdul Ghani-Naim and Ahmed Kindi as honest merchants), a request for perfume and advice from Jaber al-Ayashi of the royal court of Sharif Hussein to Baghdad to warn of robbers in the desert. "This is just to give you our advice for which you will be highly rewarded," Ayashi says. "If you don't take our advice, then we have warned you." A touch of Saddam there, I thought. The date was 1912. Some of the documents list the cost of bullets, military horses and artillery for Ottoman armies in Baghdad and Arabia, others record the opening of the first telephone exchange in the Hejaz - soon to be Saudi Arabia - while one recounts, from the village of Azrak in modern-day Jordan, the theft of clothes from a camel train by Ali bin Kassem, who attacked his interrogators "with a knife and tried to stab them but was restrained and later bought off". There is a 19th-century letter of recommendation for a merchant, Yahyia Messoudi, "a man of the highest morals, of good conduct and who works with the [Ottoman] government." This, in other words, was the tapestry of Arab history - all that is left of it, which fell into The Independent's hands as the mass of documents crackled in the immense heat of the ruins. King Faisal of the Hejaz, the ruler of Mecca, whose staff are the authors of many of the letters I saved, was later deposed by the Saudis. His son Faisel became king of Iraq - Winston Churchill gave him Baghdad after the French threw him out of Damascus - and his brother Abdullah became the first king of Jordan, the father of King Hussein and the grandfather of the present-day Jordanian monarch, King Abdullah II. For almost a thousand years, Baghdad was the cultural capital of the Arab world, the most literate population in the Middle East. Genghis Khan's grandson burnt the city in the 13th century and, so it was said, the Tigris river ran black with the ink of books. Yesterday, the black ashes of thousands of ancient documents filled the skies of Iraq. Why? (SOURCE: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=397350 ) [END] From irimland@zundelsite.org Wed Apr 16 11:41:13 2003 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 04:41:13 -0700 Subject: ZGram - 4/16/2003 - "Embezzlement as Public Policy" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 16, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Anthony Gancarski is a regular columnist for CounterPunch, an excellent web page. He can be reached at: ANTHONY.GANCARSKI@ATTBI.COM Here he writes of "Embezzlement as Public Policy" - real food for thought for all of us who just sent in our taxes: [START] April 11, 2003 Foreign Aid and AIPAC Embezzlement as Public Policy by ANTHONY GANCARSKI One of the hidden costs of the New American Century is the inevitable, periodic payoff to a friendly regime. Such payoffs predate the current Administration, of course; Nixon had his "cops on the beat", and the US bought all kinds of goodwill after WWII. As a result of being long-standing practice, these undemocratic appropriations of taxpayers' money to serve abstract foreign policy objectives often go unexamined. That might be a trivial matter if the costs were short-term, but the US commitment to foreign aid has not abated with the passage of decades. As a result, Washington has committed Americans to subsidizing the regimes of other countries, without ever courting Americans' willful consent. To give an example, Israel receives about a third of current US foreign-aid. In the current budget crisis, foreign aid seems like it would be one of the first things to be scuttled, but Washington disagrees with such parochial logic. Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Annual Policy Conference on March 30, Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed the Washington government's intention to increase subsidies to a tiny nation with a token industrial base and one of the five most powerful militaries on the planet. The transcript used here is from the State Department website, leaving the reader to wonder whether or not "(Laughter)" and "(Applause)" are intended as descriptions or as crowd directions: "While we deal with Saddam Hussein, we must not forget the burdens that the conflict with Iraq has placed on our Israeli friends. I am very pleased that President Bush has included in his supplemental budget request that just went to Congress $1 billion in Foreign Military Financing funds to help Israel strengthen its military and civil defenses. (Applause.) And that's just for starters. (Laughter.) The President is also asking for $9 billion in loan guarantees. (Applause.) These loan guarantees will help Israel deal with the economic costs arising from the conflict, and will help Israel to implement the critical economic and budgetary reforms it needs to get its economy back on track. And I am hopeful that Congress, with your encouragement -- (laughter) -- will act quickly on this request. (Applause.)" $10 billion, "for starters". As if billions of dollars were floating around in the ether. At a recent Americans for Victory Over Terrorism university "teach-in", Bill Bennett characteristically said that America has been given special gifts and therefore has the obligation to be "the world's policeman". But never do professional moralists like Bennett ask why it is that US taxpayers should pay for the right for our country to undertake such an unenviable task. The dubious logic in which the US commitment to foreign aid is rooted is rivaled in scope by the questionable economics of such programs. Why does the US give billions of dollars to Egypt and Israel to maintain a tenuous cessation of hostilities that isn't rooted in any real resolution? Why does Washington loan money to countries, and then absolve those countries of any obligation to repay their debt? It seems silly to keep track of debt at all if the debts end up written off. Such transactions aren't loans at all, so much as rentals of measures of cooperation. The strategic importance of Pakistan, for example, to the US government hasn't been lost on any President since Nixon. True to form, Washington indicated that importance on April 5 by writing off a billion dollars in Pakistani debt to the US.. "This $1 billion in debt relief will add to the momentum of Pakistan's economic recovery by allowing the government to focus more of its energies and budget resources on critical social development priorities, identified in the government's poverty reduction strategy. I want to stress that the forgiveness of $1 billion in bilateral debt is just one piece of multi-billion-dollar assistance package the US government is providing to Pakistan." Those words from Nancy Powell, US Ambassador to Pakistan, to reporters from the Pakistani Dawn newspaper. Agents of the Washington government cut deals with strongmen all over the world, doling out billions of dollars from our bankrupt treasury in the process. Essentially IOU's, these chits will be worked off by our sons and daughters. These are perilous times, made more so by foreign aid programs that are detrimental to what is now called "homeland security". There should be a moratorium on the sort of foreign aid provided to Pakistan and Israel until the US is again financially solvent. [END] ( Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/gancarski04112003.html ) ===== From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Thu Apr 17 17:26:19 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Apr 20 22:15:27 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/17/2003 - "L.A. judge boots Holocaust claims" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 17, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: A bit of a twist in the Holocaust pretzel: [START] 16 Apr 2003 01:15:41 GMT L.A. judge boots Holocaust claims against Austria ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Gina Keating LOS ANGELES, April 15 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Austrian government by Holocaust survivors, but their attorney said on Tuesday he will appeal the case to try to recover $10 billion in assets that was seized and auctioned off during World War Two. U.S. District Judge Florence Marie Cooper ruled on Monday that the proposed class action involving 250 named plaintiffs could not proceed because it posed a separation of powers dilemma. The case challenged an agreement reached over Holocaust reparations by then-President Bill Clinton and the Austrian government in 2000 and 2001. Cooper, the first U.S. judge to rule in 1999 that Holocaust victims could sue foreign governments, determined that she had jurisdiction over the parties to the lawsuit but couldn't preempt the foreign policy authority of the executive branch. The judge instead granted a dismissal motion by attorneys for Austria, who argued that the courts cannot intervene in the U.S. government's foreign policy decisions, namely, the powers to declare war, end war and resolve claims arising from war. "Courts are reluctant to pass judgment on the decisions of the political branches," attorney Konrad Cailteux, who represented the Austrian government, told Reuters. Cailteux also argued that the Holocaust settlement provided for special proceedings for victims and their heirs who felt they were not properly compensated. Attorney Herbert Fenster of Denver, Colorado, who represented the Holocaust victims and their heirs, said he plans to appeal the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Cooper's 1999 Holocaust case ruling. "The defendants say that you can't litigate these Holocaust cases before the courts because the President has resolved them by negotiating with the Austrian government," Fenster said. "We are challenging that settlement as being illegal and inadequate. We claim the president did not have the right to settle those claims out from under us." Fenster said that under a 1955 treaty reestablishing Austria's autonomy after 10 years of Allied occupation, the Federal Republic of Austria agreed to make reparations to Holocaust victims, but Austria failed to follow through. The lawsuit also names several insurers as defendants, as well as The Dorotheum, an auction house formerly owned by the Austrian government that liquidated the property of many of the country's 200,000 Jews. "They took property stolen from Jews and sold it all over the world," Fenster said. [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Apr 18 17:33:44 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Apr 20 23:43:47 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/18/2003 - "The Night After" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 18, 2002 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: For some reason, I had a difficult time all day today finding anything on the Internet that interested me and struck a deep cord. It seems that I have read it all before! The article below was posted on David Irving's website. I find it to be a disturbing article - not for its obvious conclusions but for its undercurrents. I guess I don't like the gloating aspect - that "might makes right", to use a well-known phrase. Not that Uri Avnery agrees - he just notes it as a given, as something that has now arrived. I would have preferred a sharper spice. Maybe I am just tired. Let's see how my readers react: [START] [START] April 9, 2003 The Night After By Uri Avnery Israeli author and journalist THE next war. It is now fashionable to talk about "the day after". Let's talk about night after. After the end of hostilities in Iraq, the world will be faced with two decisive facts: * First, the immense superiority of American arms can beat any people in the world, valiant as it may be. * Second, the small group that initiated this war - an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and Jewish neo-conservatives - has won big, and from now on it will control Washington almost without limits. The combination of these two facts constitutes a danger to the world, and especially to the Middle East, the Arab peoples and the future of Israel. Because this alliance is the enemy of peaceful solutions, the enemy of the Arab governments, the enemy of the Palestinian people and especially the enemy of the Israeli peace camp. It does not dream only about an American empire, in the style of the Roman one, but also of an Israeli mini-empire, under the control of the extreme right and the settlers. It wants to change the regimes in all Arab countries. It will cause permanent chaos in the region, the consequences of which it is impossible to foresee. Its mental world consists of a mixture of ideological fervor and crass material interests, an exaggerated American patriotism and right-wing ionism. That is a dangerous mixture. There is in it something of the spirit of Ariel Sharon, a man who has always had grandiose plans for changing the region, consisting of a mixture of creative imagination, unbridled chauvinism and a primitive faith in brute force. WHO are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers. For many years, this was a marginal group that fostered a right-wing agenda in all fields. They fought against abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drugs. When Binyamin Netanyahu assumed power in Israel, they offered him advise on how to fight the Arabs. Their big moment arrived with the collapse of the Twin Towers. The American public and politicians were in a state of shock, completely disoriented, unable to understand a world that had changed overnight. The neo-cons were the only group with a ready explanation and a solution. Only nine days after the outrage, William Kristol (the son of the group's founder, Irving Kristol) published an Open Letter to President Bush, asserting that it was not enough to annihilate the network of Osama bin Laden, but that it was also imperative to "remove Saddam Hussein from power" and to "retaliate" against Syria and Iran for supporting Hizbullah. Following is a short list of the main characters. (If it bores you, skip to the next section). The Open Letter was published in the Weekly Standard, founded by Kristol with the money of ultra-right press mogul Rupert Murdoch, who donated $10 million to the cause. It was signed by 41 leading neo-cons, including Norman Podhoretz, a Jewish former leftist who has become an extreme right-wing icon, editor of the prestigious Encounter [Commentary] magazine, and his wife, Midge Decter, also a writer, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Studies, Robert Kagan, also of the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, and, of course, Richard Perle. Perle is a central character in this play. Until recently he was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Defense Department, which also includes Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross. Perle is a director of the Jerusalem Post, now owned by extreme right-wing Zionists. In the past he was an aide to Senator Henry Jackson, who led the fight against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Jews who wanted to leave. He is a leading member of the influential right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Lately he was obliged to resign from his Defense Department position, when it became known that a private corporation had promised to pay him almost a million dollars for the benefit of his influence in the administration. THAT Open Letter was, in effect, the beginning of the Iraq war. It was eagerly received by the Bush administration, with members of the group already firmly established in some of its leading positions. Paul Wolfowitz, the father of the war, is No. 2 in the Defense Department, where another friend of Perle's, Douglas Feith, heads the Pentagon Planning Board. John Bolton is State Department Undersecretary. Eliot Abrams, responsible for the Middle East in the National Security Council, was connected with the Iran-Contra-Israel scandal. The main hero of the scandal, Oliver North, sits in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, together with Michael Ledeen, another hero of the scandal. He advocates total war not only against Iraq, but also against Israel's other enemies, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department. Most of these people , together with Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (right), are associated with the "Project for the New American Century", which published a White Paper in 2002, with the aim 'to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'" -- meaning American control of the world. Meyrav Wurmser (Meyrav is a chic new Israeli first name) is Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. She also writes for the Jerusalem Post and is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute that is, according to the London Guardian, connected with Israeli Army Intelligence. MEMRI feeds the media and politicians with highly selective quotations from extreme Arab publications. Meyrav's husband, Davis Wurmser, is at Perle's American Enterprise Institute, heading Middle East Studies. Mention should also be made of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy of our old acquaintance, Dennis Ross, who for years was in charge of the "peace process" in the Middle East. In all the important papers there are people close to the group, such as William Safire, a man hypnotized by Sharon, in the New York Times and Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Another Perle friend, Robert Bartley, is the editor of the Wall Street Journal. If the speeches of Bush and Cheney often sound as if they came from the lips of Sharon, one of the reasons may be that their speechwriters, Joseph Shattan, Mathew Scully and John McConnell, are neo-cons, as is Cheneys Chief-of-Staff, Lewis Libby. The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's RRepublican party. The founding fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies. Common to both groups is their adherence to the fanatical ideology of the extreme right in Israel. They see the Iraq war as a struggle between the Children of Light (America and Israel) and the Children of Darkness (the Arabs and Muslims). By the way, none of these facts are secret. They have been published lately in dozens of articles, both in American and world media. The members of the group are proud of them. The Zionist general. The man who symbolizes this victory is General Jay Garner, who has just been appointed chief of the civilian administration in Iraq. He is no anonymous general who has been picked accidentally. Garner is the ideological partner of Paul Wolfowitz and the neo-cons. Two years ago he signed, together with 26 other officers, a petition organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, lauding the Israeli Army for "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority," which is certainly news to the Israeli peace forces. He also stated that "a strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political eaders can rely on." In the first Gulf War he praised the performance of the Patriot missiles, which had failed miserably. After leaving the army in 1997, he became, not surprisingly, a defense contractor specializing in missiles. It was alleged that he landed non-competitive Pentagon contracts. This year he obtained a defense contract for $1.5 billion, as well as a contract for building Patriot systems in Israel. Therefore, there can be no better candidate for the job of chief of the civilian administration in Iraq, especially at a time when contracts for billions of dollars for reconstruction have to be handed out, to be paid for by Iraqi oil. A new Balfour declaration. The ideology of this group, that calls for an American world-empire as well as for a Greater Israel, reminds one of bygone days. The Balfour declaration of 1917, that promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine, had two parents. The mother was Christian Zionism (among whose adherents were illustrious statesmen like Lord Palmerston and Lord Shaftesbury, long before the foundation of the Zionist movement), the father was British imperialism. The Zionist idea allowed the British to crowd out their French competitors and take possession of Palestine, which was needed to safeguard the Suez Canal and the shorter sea route to India. Now the same thing is happening again. Last year Richard Perle organized a briefing in which a speaker proposed war not only on Iraq, but on Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well, in order to secure the world's oil heartland. Iraq, he asserted, was only the pivot. One of the justifications for this design is the need to defend Israel. To bet on our life? Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power. But this tendency troubles me. We are like a gambler, who bets all his money and his future on one horse. A good horse, a horse with no current competitor, but still one horse. The neo-cons will cause a long period of chaos in the Arab and Muslim world. The Iraqi war has already shown that their understanding of Arab realities is shaky. Their political assumptions did not stand the test, only brute force saved their undertaking. Some day the Americans will go home, but we shall remain here. We have to live with the Arab peoples. Chaos in the Arab world endangers our future. Wolfowitz and Co. may dream about a democratic, liberal, Zionist and America-loving Middle East, but the result of their adventures may well turn out to be a fanatical and fundamentalist region that will threaten our very existence. The partnership of the neo-cons and the Christian fundamentalists may engender counter-forces in Washington. And if Bush is defeated in the next election, like his father after his victory in the first Gulf War, this whole gang will be thrown out. The Bible tells us about the kings of Judea, who relied on the then world power, Egypt. They did not appreciate the rise of forces in the east, Assyria and Babylon. An Assyrian general told the king of Judea: "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it." (II Kings 18, 21). Bush and his gang of neo-cons is not a bruised reed. Far from it, he is now a very strong reed. But should we bet our whole future on this? [END] ===== (Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Avnery090403.html) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sat Apr 19 18:49:41 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Apr 21 00:31:39 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/19/2003 - "Ledeen: What if there's method to the Franco-German madness?" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 19, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: An absolutely extraordinary article! Shortly before Ernst Zundel was arrested on February 5, we were sitting peacefully at breakfast, sipping our German coffee, admiring not only each other but the splendidly sun-drenched morning outside - when, all of a sudden and out of the blue, Ernst outlined for me in clipped words exactly the scenario sketched below. I was so startled that I said to myself: "Well, since we are married, am I permitted to think that maybe, just maybe, my husband is a little off his rocker? Who would think of Europe as a threat? Who would be so foolish as to put 'Old Europe' in the cross-hairs as an 'enemy'? Surely not America!" Talk about clairvoyance! [START} A Theory: What if there's method to the Franco-German madness? Micheal Ledeen Assume, for a moment, that the French and the Germans aren't thwarting us out of pique, but by design, long-term design. Then look at the world again, and see if there's evidence of such a design. Like everyone else, the French and the Germans saw that the defeat of the Soviet Empire projected the United States into the rare, almost unique position of a global hyperpower, a country so strong in every measurable element that no other nation could possibly resist its will. The "new Europe" had been designed to carve out a limited autonomy for the old continent, a balance-point between the Americans and the Soviets. But once the Soviets were gone, and the Red Army melted down, the European Union was reduced to a combination theme park and free-trade zone. Some foolish American professors and doltish politicians might say - and even believe - that henceforth "power" would be defined in economic terms, and that military power would no longer count. But cynical Europeans know better. They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down. If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same. How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America's vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans. The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States. This required considerable skill, and total cynicism, both of which were in abundant supply in Paris and Berlin. Chancellor Shroeder gained reelection by warning of American warmongering, even though, as usual, America had been attacked first. And both Shroeder and Chirac went to great lengths to support Islamic institutions in their countries, even when - as in the French case - it was in open violation of the national constitution. French law stipulates a total separation of church and state, yet the French Government openly funds Islamic "study" centers, mosques, and welfare organizations. A couple of months ago, Chirac approved the creation of an Islamic political body, a mini-parliament, that would provide Muslims living in France with official stature and enhanced political clout. And both countries have permitted the Saudis to build thousands of radical Wahhabi mosques and schools, where the hatred of the infidels is instilled in generation after generation of young Sunnis. It is perhaps no accident that Chirac went to Algeria last week and promised a cheering crowd that he would not rest until America's grand design had been defeated. Both countries have been totally deaf to suggestions that the West take stern measures against the tyrannical terrorist sponsors in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. Instead, they do everything in their power to undermine American-sponsored trade embargoes or more limited sanctions, and it is an open secret that they have been supplying Saddam with military technology through the corrupt ports of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid's little playground in Dubai, often through Iranian middlemen. It sounds fanciful, to be sure. But the smartest people I know have been thoroughly astonished at recent French and German behavior. This theory may help understand what's going on. I now believe that I was wrong to forecast that the French would join the war against Iraq at the last minute, having gained every possible economic advantage in the meantime. I think Chirac will oppose us before, during, and after the war, because he has cast his lot with radical Islam and with the Arab extremists. He isn't doing it just for the money - although I have no doubt that France is being richly rewarded for defending Saddam against the civilized countries of the world - but for higher stakes. He's fighting to end the feared American domination before it takes stable shape. If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us. Radio Free France, anyone? ===== - Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, can be reached through Benador Associates ===== Michael A. Ledeen Dr. Michael A. Ledeen, who holds the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., is one of the world's leading authorities on intelligence, contemporary history and international affairs. In a few years in government, he carried out some of the most sensitive and dangerous missions in recent American history. He has been profiled in the New York Times, and was the subject of a front-page article and a lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal. A profile of him concluded that "a portrait emerges of a man with an intense knowledge of 20th-century history, a deep commitment to democracy, and a willingness to be adventurous. This is a man who has helped shape American foreign policy at its highest levels." As Ted Koppel puts it, "Michael Ledeen is a Renaissance man...in the tradition of Machiavelli." Formerly Rome correspondent for the New Republic, the founding editor of the Washington Quarterly, and Contributing Editor of National Review Online, he is a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal, The International Economy, the American Spectator, the New York Sun, and National Review, an adviser to multinational corporations in Europe, Africa and the United States, and a corporate director in America and Africa. He also writes about contract bridge for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Sun. Dr. Ledeen is a celebrated scholar and lecturer. He holds a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin, and has been the recipient of many awards and research grants. His 15 books include Grave New World, which predicted the crisis of the Soviet Empire five years before it occurred, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, (1999, St. Martin's Press), Tocqueville on American Character; Why Tocqueville's Brilliant Exploration of the American Spirit is as Vital and Important Today as it was nearly Two Hundred Years Ago (St. Martin's Press, 2000) and, most recently, his highly successful The War Against the Terror Masters; How it Happened. Where We Are Now. How We Will Win (St. Martin's Press, 2002). He is currently writing a book on Naples, Italy. His essays and books have been reprinted in dozens of languages around the world. Dr. Ledeen lectures on War & Peace, Terrorism, the Middle East, and American Foreign Policy. 1 From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Apr 20 08:02:49 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Apr 21 01:25:20 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/20/2003 - " Ernst Zundel, Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ: an Analogy for Good Friday Meditation" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 20, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Again there is something wrong with my ZGrams getting out on time. Additionally, there is interference with my letters to Ernst, and his letters to me. Even Global Priority, which should take no longer than 3 days, arrives belatedly two weeks or more after it has been mailed - or disappears entirely. And just a few days ago I had a horrendous telephone problem - while I could receive regular calls, I could not receive collect calls from Ernst, and I could not call out at all, not even 411 for phone number information. When I finally managed to get the word out to Bell South, the repairman who came to my aid said that in 31 years of working for the telephone company, he had never once encountered a problem like that. Just what that "problem" consisted of, I have not been able to ferret out. The lame excuse given by the central business office was that a block had been put on my lines because I received too many calls, but it should not have mattered because my account was paid up, and the next billing cycle was not yet due. So something fishy is again going on! It seems that interference never ends! The ZGram below was meant for Good Friday - however, since I only received it on Saturday and had already planned my ZGram for the day, I am running it today. Let me just preface it by saying that when Ernst carried a cross during one of his innumerable Holocaust Trials to demonstrate that Freedom of Speech had died in Canada, many people objected and thought he was presumptuous to liken himself to Christ's walk to Golgatha. Of course the idea was to make a harmful issue visible by parable. Here Dr. Robert Countess, a former Army Chaplain and a stout Revisionist who is publicizing Ernst's latest persecution to a more general readership, wrote this: [START] Ernst Zundel, Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ: an Analogy for Good Friday Meditation By Robert H. Countess, Ph.D. According to the New Testament documents, Passover Week Friday was the day Jesus was crucified as 1) a simple Roman execution; 2) a hate crime and show trial by evil Jewish leaders - but not the masses; and 3) a theological event of universal soteriological significance in the plan of God for redemption. However, the events of the night prior must be considered in order to gain valuable perspective. After Jesus celebrated the Passover meal in the Upper Room and Judas the Treasurer had departed for his opportunistic Thirty Pieces of Silver [a large sum then], the group walked to the Garden of Gethsemane [perhaps as beautiful as Hatcher Mountain] where Jesus prayed and the disciples all fell asleep. Then Judas came leading a group of armed soldiery and policemen large enough perhaps to frighten a Saddam Hussein. [One might recall the five officers who came to arrest the pacifist Ernst Zundel on February 5th, 2003 armed and one even with a flak vest.] Judas came forward and placed his evil kiss on Jesus' cheek and the personal betrayal for Geld was done. We read that the red-haired [Catholic "first Pope"] fisherman Peter pulled a sword and attacked the High Priest's bond slave Malchus [John 18:10] but was so poorly trained in violent combat that he only cut off the right ear - which Jesus healed on the spot [Luke 22:51]. At this point, the Disciples fled for their lives. The High Priest's vigilantes then bound Jesus [leg irons?] and led him to the rich Palace of Annas, father-in-law to High Priest Caiaphas. Annas had been High Priest but he had still the enormous influence of the office without now occupying it; plus he "contributed", shall we say, large sums of money to "friends" in the Roman government of Jerusalem. Power, money, influence, and family members in high government circles? What a more proper first stop for this threat to national security, Jesus, than Annas' place of residence and business? Immense capital flowed from the Temple precincts into Annas' coffers. Little wonder that Jesus was so hated for His onslaught [see John 2:13f] into these for-profit chambers, upturning tables and scattering the Jewish filthy lucre and rope whipping the money changers who, Jesus was convinced, had turned Jehovah's house into "a den of thieves"! The Roman soldiers had their orders to take Jesus to Annas' place, no doubt having gotten some shekels to grease the path. The often whispered "Jewish Power" by timid Gentiles of our own day is nothing new, it seems, since the hated and pagan Romans themselves yielded to Jewish Power and, of course, as always, money in sufficient quantities to make it all seem appropriate. High Priest Caiaphas was already His implacable enemy but now became His accuser and judge. Around Caiaphas were--like those around Saddam--large numbers in his service, fearful to cross him lest they experience some "difficulty" in life and employment. There's nothing like the corrupt use of power by corrupt religious leaders! A hastily gathered ad hoc meeting of Priests and Elders, Sanhedrinists, Lawyers, and Scribes appeared that pre-Passover evening. A regular meeting of this "Supreme Court" would never have been held on Passover or Passover Eve itself, but so great a threat to the vested interests of Jewry did Jesus appear to be that they came and stayed to effect their "Privat-mord" as one scholar put it in his Geschichte des Judenthums [19th century]. This "private murder" was not the routine result of a normally held Great Sanhedrin and its full 71 members for whom the hated Romans allowed full authority over religious matters except capital punishment itself - left only to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. And since Jesus basically refused to offer a defense for Himself - since He came to die as Messiah - the gathered authorities resorted to distortion of His message and then, in the end, to lying and bribed [oh the power of money over conscience to many people!] false witnesses who gave their "eyewitness" testimonies which largely contradicted each other. Jews are not alone among two-legged sentient air-suckers [my term for homo sapiens] in giving false, alleged "eyewitness" testimony, but they may well be unique in being the most successful as an identifiable group in employing it in the past and--since World War Two - now in the present in so-called "testi-lying" on behalf of the Holocaust Industry. Perhaps the Great Sanhedrin chief prosecutor even insisted upon "judicial notice" that Jesus had committed all sorts of felonies that made him a threat to national security? Why not? May be that Nuremberg jurisprudence had ample precedent for its own nefarious methods to convict and condemn in 1945-6. The final "evidence" to support judicial condemnation came, however, when Jesus finally spoke to High Priest Caiaphas and admitted to being "the Christ, the Son of God" [Matthew 26:63-4]. We read that Caiaphas tore his outer robe as a display of hearing blasphemy [vs. 65], announcing with a loud voice that the trouble maker was obviously worthy of death. At this, the standers-by began to spit in Jesus' face and to beat Him and taunt Him with commands to engage in fortune telling such as "Who hit you?" Of major interest for this present essay is Matthew 27:15f. The text states that there was a tradition associated with the Passover wherein Governor Pontius Pilate would allow the crowd to select the release of a prisoner scheduled for execution. Now, if the Sanhedrinist authorities could redirect the crowd's general empathy for Jesus away from Jesus and toward the felon and real national security threat, Bar-Abbas [Hebrew & Aramaic "son of the father"], then they could succeed in having the hated Roman Governor himself execute Jesus and they could blame - that is, relieve themselves of personal and legal responsibility - Pilate for the execution. To this end, the priestly agitators shouted out to Pilate, "Release Bar-Abbas!" Perhaps some "walking around" money flowed to certain loud-voiced men in the crowd to shout louder and incessantly, "Release to us Bar-Abbas!" In due time - how long, the text does not say - Pilate gave in to the masses' clamor for the release of a real felon and in his place the crucifixion of the preacher of love and peace, Jesus the Messiah. How pleased the Sanhedrinists must have felt if, as they might have thought: "We finally are about to be rid of this pest, this bacillus, and we can thank the crowd and Governor Pilate for doing the dirty work." [I have found in Talmud study that Talmudic Jews routinely seek not to obey the law of God in the Torah, but rather to circumnavigate around the law after the experts have diluted it or complicated it or nullified it with countless inferential and/or implied details so burdensome that a sane person would conclude: Who cares? What is the purpose after all? God is not the goal, but human striving for self-recognition. Can anyone actually obey what the Talmudists have created and now call Halachoth? Finally, we come to the analogy of Ernst Zundel in his solitary confinement in the Niagara Falls, Ontario detention center. If the evil movers and shakers and string pullers behind Ernst's continued imprisonment with no granting of bail in sight - the Canadian Jewish Congress and its brother organizations there and the Anti-Defamation League in the USA - had been given Pilate's choice on Good Friday 2003, I believe they would have behaved with the same insane reasoning and emotion of the rabble in Pilate's presence. Let us say that "Pilate" in 2003 would have offered the felon Irv Rubin [former Jewish Defense League Director] to the crowd, a notorious criminal and street bully and firebomber extraordinaire, I believe the CJC would bribe the masses to shout for the release of Irv and to "crucify" Ernst Zundel. If our contemporary "Pilate" were to offer one of several Jewish hatemongers such as Elie Wiesel or Abe Foxman or Edgar Bronfman to the babbling, gaggling, cackling crowd of circumcised and uncircumcised riffraff, the flotsam and jetsam of big city Toronto in place of Ernst Zundel, I believe the CJC and its supporters would immediately raise shouts of "Release to us Elie or Abe or Edgar and Crucify Ernst!" I have met Elie Wiesel. I have met Irv Rubin. Believe me, Ernst Zundel is no Elie Wiesel. Ernst Zundel is no Irv Rubin. Ernst holds strong opinions about history and society and life and Zionism and Freemasonry, but he promotes no hatred for those who disagree with him. The CJC is unified in its hatred of Ernst Zundel. The CJC is unified in its hatred of Jesus Christ. The CJC is unified in its irrational support for Jewish Supremacy and the State of Israel and the ethnic-cleansing of the Semito-Palestinians [my term]. The CJC is unified in opposing bail for Ernst Zundel at any price and at any time. The CJC fears Ernst Zundel, but not because he has a gun in his hand, but rather a pencil stub and continues to write and promote the open discussion of the Holocaust Industry's Holo-hoax upon Germans and all Gentiles and upon ignorant Jews themselves. The CJC is right to fear Ernst Zundel's stubby pencil and is right to fear his wife's Zundelsite and is right to fear the Internet in general, since - as Germar Rudolf put it - "Internet macht frei!" Robert H. Countess, Ph.D. boblbpinc@earthlink.net Huntsville, Alabama [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Apr 21 19:26:39 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Apr 21 21:23:44 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/21/2003 - "Explosive Danish Documentary" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 21, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Only the tip of the iceberg! [START] Explosive Danish Documentary By Andrew Osborn The Observer - UK 3-14-3 Stirring tales of wartime resistance have been common currency in Denmark for 50 years, but an explosive new documentary has illuminated a darker side to the period and is outraging a generation. Only a German does not pull any punches, claiming that the Danish authorities were responsible for the deaths of 7,000 German children under the age of five between 1945 and 1949 and describing how Danish doctors denied food and medical aid to a quarter of a million German refugees seeking sanctuary in Denmark. Produced by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, the programme has provoked a storm of controversy. The producer has been called a traitor and a propagandist, surviving members of the Danish resistance movement have called it a lie and an affront to the past, and many elderly people claim it tells a story best forgotten. After living under Nazi occupation from April 1940 until May 1945, Danes were anxious not to be labelled as collaborators when the smoke finally cleared. In fact they were so eager to show their anti-Nazi credentials, it is argued, that they treated Germans who sought refuge there from the advancing Soviets like animals. Mostly women, children and the elderly, the refugees were put in internment camps, forbidden from fraternising with Danes and refused both medical care and sufficient food. As a result, some 13,500 refugees died in 1945 alone - 7,000 children. Dr Kirsten Lylloff, an amateur historian who became curious about the number of graves of German babies and children near her home, says they all died of 'perfectly curable' diseases. Soeren Lindbjerg, producer of the documentary, said the children were treated abominably. 'They died from malnutrition and ordinary diseases such as measles and scarlet fever,' he told The Observer . 'These were contagious diseases, but they were kept in overcrowded camps with scarce food and they died like flies. They were in Danish care behind barbed wire and totally dependent on Denmark. This part of our history has been whitewashed.' Refugees from other countries were separated and provided with more food and basic medical care, adds Lindbjerg. But not everyone agrees. Former resistance fighter Leif Larsen, founder of Denmark's Documentation Centre against Historical Falsification, claims the Germans had only themselves to blame. 'This thing that has been called a dark chapter in Danish history wasn't dark at all. The fact of the matter is that the Germans themselves rejected the help of Danish doctors. 'A lot of people have called me a traitor and said I am smearing our country's reputation and should not have told this story, but nobody has been able to reject my documents. There's a feeling that what the Germans did to us was far worse, so we shouldn't tell the story.' Helge Kvam, of the Danish Red Cross, said his organisation couldn't help because of Danish hostility towards Germans. 'The atmosphere at the time was very anti-German. Girls who had slept with German soldiers had their heads shaven and were driven around and spat at. We would have been considered collaborators if we had helped.' Lindbjerg said: 'The heroic efforts of Danish resistance fighters and the rescue of Jews are all we hear about, and they're true. At school this chapter of history is never talked about. But every country has to face its past.' [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Wed Apr 23 04:33:11 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Wed Apr 23 15:43:33 2003 Subject: Fwd: ZGra, - 4/23/2003 - "The Idaho Observer: The Allied Holocaust at Dresden" Message-ID: >Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 04:11:26 -0700 >To: zgram-freedomsite.org >From: Ingrid Rimland >Subject: ZGra, - 4/23/2003 - "The Idaho Observer: The Allied >Holocaust at Dresden" >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > > > >ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! > >April 23, 2003 > >Good Morning from the Zundelsite: > >Next time you see a photo of a pyre depicting the incineration of >hundreds of bodies, don't think Auschwitz - think Dresden! Those >pictures, having been peddled for decades to brainwash the world >against Germans, are pictures documenting Allied bombing victims of >the beautiful city of Dresden. > >I want to thank Don Harkins, a courageous young American journalist, >for publishing this important article. > >[START] > >The Allied Holocaust At Dresden >By Don Harkins >The Idaho Observer >4-22-3 > >On Saturday afternoon of February, 14, 2003, my wife, another couple >and their son and I arrived at the home of our dear friend Edda West >near Nelson, B.C., Canada. We had dinner and spent the evening >talking about a variety of things. When we decided to retire late >that evening, we gave Edda a copy of the December edition of Current >Concerns -- an opposition newspaper from Zurich, Switzerland. > >When we awoke the next morning, the morning after the 58th >anniversary of the Dresden bombing, Edda described how she had >stayed up for hours reading the survivor account of the Dresden >bombing in Current Concerns. > >That morning turned out to be very special. We knew Edda had been >born in Estonia in 1943 and had been transported in a wagon by her >mother and grandmother all the way to Germany as they fled their >country ahead of the Russians (who had established a pattern of >murdering and brutalizing Estonians for centuries). What we didn't >know was that she was a Dresden survivor. > >For 45 minutes we were all captivated by the story this lovely, >passionate woman related as she recounted the horrors of that day. >Three years old at the time, she does not remember specifics -- only >the horror that she relived over and over again in nightmares until >she was 12. However, she lived with her mother and grandmother >telling the stories and she retold many of them for us that morning. > >I do not believe I have ever been so moved by a person's story in all my life. > >When we got back home, I wrote a letter to Eva-Maria Fullner of >Current Concerns (with whom The IO trades a subscription) and told >her about this experience. > >A few weeks later, Eva-Maria called and said she was in New York and >wanted to come for a visit. She also asked if Edda could come. > >We called Edda who was elated with the thought of coming down to >meet Eva-Maria. > >The time with Edda and Eva-Maria during the weekend of March 15 was >a resumption of the morning of Feb. 15, but it lasted all weekend. >We had these amazing conversations that were only interrupted by >sleeping. > >Edda wrote a 3,900-word surviver account of Dresden that can be >found in the April edition of Current >Concerns(www.currentconcerns.ch). > >We will only excerpt from Edda's story, but we encourage everyone >who wants to understand what really happened at Dresden to find the >entire article at the website above and, while you are at it, take a >look at the article from December as well. > >Why? Because the Allies (this time called the Coalition) are about >to reduce another large city to rubble and mass murder a lot of >innocent people. We think it's important to know that pro-government >historians are allowed to bury mass murder stories only when the >survivors maintain their silence. > >*** > >The Dresden Bombing: An eyewitness account > >by Edda West > >My grandmother would always begin the story of Dresden by describing >the clusters of red candle flares dropped by the first bombers, >which like hundreds of Christmas trees, lit up the night sky - a >sure sign it would be a big air raid. Then came the first wave of >hundreds of British bombers that hit a little after 10 p.m. the >night of February 13-14, 1945, followed by two more intense bombing >raids by the British and Americans over the next 14 hours. History >records it as the deadliest air attack of all time, delivering a >death toll that exceeded the atomic blasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > >In 20 minutes of intense bombing, the city became an inferno. The >second bombing raid came three hours after the first and was >"intended to catch rescue workers, firefighters and fleeing >inhabitants at their fullest exposure." Altogether, the British >dropped nearly 3,000 tons of explosives that shattered roofs, walls, >windows, whole buildings, and included hundreds of thousands of >phosphorous incendiaries, which were small firebombs that sprinkled >unquenchable fire into every crevasse they rolled into, igniting the >inferno that turned Dresden into a "hurricane of flames." > >By the time the Americans flew in for the third and last air raid, >smoke from the burning city nearly obliterated visibility. One >American pilot recollects, "We bombed from 26,000 feet and could >barely see the ground because of clouds and long columns of black >smoke. Not a single enemy gun was fired at either the American or >British bombers." > >The Americans dropped 800 tons of explosives and fire bombs in 11 >minutes. Then, according to British historian David Irving in his >book, The Destruction of Dresden, American P-51 fighter escorts >dived to treetop level and strafed the city's fleeing refugees. > >My grandmother described the horrific firestorm that raged like a >hurricane and consumed the city. It seemed as if the very air was on >fire. Thousands were killed by bomb blasts, but enormous, untold >numbers were incinerated by the firestorm, an artificial tornado >with winds of more than 100 miles an hour that "sucked up its >victims and debris into its vortex and consumed oxygen with >temperatures of 1,000 degrees centigrade." > >Many days later, after the fires had died down, my grandmother >walked through the city. What she saw was indescribable in any human >language. But the suffering etched on her face and the depths of >anguish reflecting in her eyes as she told the story bore witness to >the ultimate horror of man's inhumanity to man and the stark >obscenity of war. > >Dresden, the capital of Saxony, a centre of art, theatre, music, >museums and university life, resplendent with graceful architecture >-- a place of beauty with lakes and gardens -- was now completely >destroyed. The city burned for seven days and smoldered for weeks. > >My grandmother saw the remains of masses of people who had >desperately tried to escape the incinerating firestorm by jumping >head first into the lakes and ponds. The parts of their bodies that >were submerged in the water were still intact, while the parts that >protruded above water were charred beyond human recognition. What >she witnessed was a hell beyond human imagination; a holocaust of >destruction that defies description. > >It took more than three months just to bury the dead, with scores of >thousands buried in mass graves. Irving wrote, "an air raid had >wrecked a target so disastrously that there were not enough >able-bodied survivors left to bury the dead." > >Confusion and disorientation were so great from the mass deaths and >the terror, that it was months before the real degree of devastation >was understood and authorities, fearful of a typhus epidemic, >cremated thousands of bodies in hastily erected pyres fueled by >straw and wood. > >German estimates of the dead ranged up to 220,000, but the >completion of identification of the dead was halted by the Russian >occupation of Dresden in May. > >Elisabeth, who was a young woman of around 20 at the time of the >Dresden bombing, has written memoirs for her children in which she >describes what happened to her in Dresden. Seeking shelter in the >basement of the house she lived in she writes, "Then the detonation >of bombs started rocking the earth and in a great panic, everybody >came rushing down. The attack lasted about half an hour. Our >building and the immediate surrounding area had not been hit. Almost >everybody went upstairs, thinking it was over but it was not. The >worst was yet to come and when it did, it was pure hell. During the >brief reprieve, the basement had filled with people seeking shelter, >some of whom were wounded from bomb shrapnel. > >"One soldier had a leg torn off. He was accompanied by a medic, who >attended to him but he was screaming in pain and there was a lot of >blood. There also was a wounded woman, her arm severed just below >her shoulder and hanging by a piece of skin. A military medic was >looking after her, but the bleeding was severe and the screams very >frightening. > >"Then the bombing began again. This time there was no pause between >detonations and the rocking was so severe, we lost our balance, and >were tossed around in the basement like a bunch of ragdolls. At >times the basement walls were separated and lifted up. We could see >the flashes of the fiery explosions outside. There were a lot of >fire bombs and canisters of phosphorous being dumped everywhere. The >phosphorus was a thick liquid that burned upon exposure to air and >as it penetrated cracks in buildings, it burned wherever it leaked >through. The fumes from it were poisonous. When it came leaking down >the basement steps somebody yelled to grab a beer (there was some >stored where we were), soak a cloth, a piece of your clothing, and >press it over your mouth and nose. The panic was horrible. Everybody >pushed, shoved and clawed to get a bottle. > >"I had pulled off my underwear and soaked the cloth with the beer >and pressed it over my nose and mouth. The heat in that basement was >so severe it only took a few minutes to make that cloth bone dry. I >was like a wild animal, protecting my supply of wetness. I don't >like to remember that. > >"The bombing continued. I tried bracing myself against a wall. That >took the skin off my hands -- the wall was so hot. The last I >remember of that night is losing my balance, holding onto somebody >but falling and taking them too, with them falling on top of me. I >felt something crack inside. While I lay there I had only one >thought -- to keep thinking. As long as I know I'm thinking, I am >alive, but at some point I lost consciousness. > >"The next thing I remember is feeling terribly cold. I then realized >I was lying on the ground, looking into the burning trees. It was >daylight. There were animals screeching in some of them. Monkeys >from the burning zoo. I started moving my legs and arms. It hurt a >lot but I could move them. Feeling the pain told me that I was >alive. I guess my movements were noticed by a soldier from the >rescue and medical corps. > >"The corps had been put into action all over the city and it was >they who had opened the basement door from the outside. Taking all >the bodies out of the burning building. Now they were looking for >signs of life from any of us. I learned later that there had been >over a hundred and seventy bodies taken out of that basement and >twenty seven came back to life. I was one of them -- miraculously! > >"They then attempted to take us out of the burning city to a >hospital. The attempt was a gruesome experience. Not only were the >buildings and the trees burning but so was the asphalt on the >streets. For hours, the truck had to make a number of detours before >getting beyond the chaos. But before the rescue vehicles could get >the wounded to the hospitals, enemy planes bore down on us once >more. We were hurriedly pulled off the trucks and placed under them. >The planes dived at us with machine guns firing and dropped more >fire bombs. > >"The memory that has remained so vividly in my mind was seeing and >hearing humans trapped, standing in the molten, burning asphalt like >living torches, screaming for help which was impossible to give. At >the time I was too numb to fully realize the atrocity of this scene >but after I was 'safe' in the hospital, the impact of this and >everything else threw me into a complete nervous breakdown. I had to >be tied to my bed to prevent me from severely hurting myself >physically. There I screamed for hours and hours behind a closed >door while a nurse stayed at my bedside. > >"I am amazed at how vivid all of this remains in my memory. >(Elizabeth is in her late 70s at the time of this writing). It is >like opening a floodgate. This horror stayed with me in my dreams >for many years. I am grateful that I no longer have a feeling of >fury and rage about any of these experiences any more -- just great >compassion for everybody's pain, including my own. > >"The Dresden experience has stayed with me very vividly through my >entire life. The media later released that the number of people who >died during the bombing was estimated in excess of two hundred and >fifty thousand -- over a quarter of a million people. This was due >to all the refugees who came fleeing from the Russians, and >Dresden's reputation as a safe city. There were no air raid shelters >there because of the Red Cross agreement. > >"What happened with all the dead bodies? Most were left buried in >the rubble. I think Dresden became one mass grave. It was not >possible for the majority of these bodies to be identified. And >therefore next of kin were never notified. Countless families were >left with mothers, fathers, wives, children and siblings unaccounted >for to this day." [end quote] > >According to some historians, the question of who ordered the attack >and why, has never been answered. To this day, no one has shed light >on these two critical questions. Some think the answers may lie in >unpublished papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, >Winston Churchill and perhaps others. History reports that the >British and American attack on Dresden left more than 2-1/2 times as >many civilians dead as Britain suffered in all of World War II, and >that one in every 5 Germans killed in the war died in the Dresden >holocaust. > >Some say the motive was to deliver the final blow to the German >spirit -- that the psychological impact of the utter destruction of >the heart centre of German history and culture would bring Germany >to its knees once and for all. > >Some say it was to test new weapons of mass destruction, the >phosphorous incendiary bomb technology. Undoubtedly the need for >control and power was at the root. The insatiable need of the >dominators to exert control and power over a captive and fearful >humanity is what drives acts of mass murder like the Dresden >firebombing and Hiroshima. > >I think there was also an additional hidden and cynical motive which >may be why full disclosure of the Dresden bombing has been >suppressed. The Allies knew full well that hundreds of thousands of >refugees had migrated to Dresden in the belief that this was a safe >destination and the Red Cross had been assured Dresden was not a >target. The end of the war was clearly in sight at that point in >time and an enormous mass of displaced humanity would have to be >dealt with. What to do with all these people once the war ended? >What better solution than the final solution? Why not kill three >birds with one stone? By incinerating the city, along with a large >percentage of its residents and refugees, the effectiveness of their >new firebombs was successfully demonstrated. Awe and terror was >struck in the German people, thereby accelerating the end of the >war. And finally, the Dresden firebombing ensured the substantial >reduction of a massive sea of unwanted humanity, thereby greatly >lessening the looming burden and problem of postwar resettlement and >restructuring. > >We may never know what was in the psyche of those in power or all >the motives that unleashed such horrific destruction of civilian >life - the mass murder of a defenseless humanity who constituted no >military threat whatsoever and whose only crime was to try to find >relief and shelter from the ravages of war. Without the existence of >any military justification for such an onslaught on helpless people, >the Dresden firebombing can only be viewed as a hideous crime >against humanity, waiting silently and invisibly for justice, for >resolution and for healing in the collective psyches of the victims >and the perpetrators. > >The Idaho Observer >P.O. Box 457 >Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869 >Phone: 208-255-2307 >Email: observer@coldreams.com >Web: >http://idaho-observer.com >http://proliberty.com/observer/ > > From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Wed Apr 23 04:34:08 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Wed Apr 23 15:43:49 2003 Subject: Fwd: ZGram - 4/22/2003 - "Go directly to jail, crime or no" Message-ID: >Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:46:51 -0700 >To: zgram-freedomsite.org >From: Ingrid Rimland >Subject: ZGram - 4/22/2003 - "Go directly to jail, crime or no" >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > > > >ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! > >April 22, 2003 > >Good Morning from the Zundelsite: > >This story has a familiar ring. It appeared in the St. Petersburg >Times on April 20, 2003 and was written by Robin E. Blumner: > >[START] > >Sometimes, before an abusive government practice gains widespread >attention, bad things have to happen to someone with this bio: >American citizen, blond wife, adorable children, good job and >high-status friends. > >That victim would be Maher "Mike" Hawash, a naturalized American of >Palestinian descent who has been held in federal custody as a >material witness to a terrorism investigation since March 20. > >In an early-morning raid, Hawash was seized by armed FBI agents in >the parking lot of his workplace in Portland, Ore. His home was >later searched for hours and four computers were confiscated. Hawash >has since been held under maximum-security conditions in a federal >prison south of Portland. No one who can talk knows why Hawash has >been detained or what the FBI agents are looking into, although >there is conjecture it might have something to do with his donations >to a Muslim charity. Everyone directly associated with the case, >including his lawyers, has been ordered by a judge not to speak >about it. > >But Hawash is lucky. Unlike other Muslim and Middle Eastern men who >have found themselves in this predicament, Hawash has well-situated >friends. As a former employee and now a contract software engineer >for Intel Corp., Hawash has a wide cadre of associates in the >computer industry. And they are not sitting on their hands. An >Internet-driven information campaign (www.freemikehawash.org) and >organized "free Mike" rallies have increased interest in his case >and, as a result, in the way Attorney General John Ashcroft has been >misusing the material witness statute. > >Steven McGeady, a former Intel vice president, is leading the effort >on Hawash's behalf. McGeady said he had been a casual observer of >the post-Sept. 11 terrorism detentions -- concerned but not engaged. >His activism kicked in when his good friend was arrested. What >happened to Hawash "is the classical definition of a police state," >McGeady said. "Government can hold you in secret at any time and for >any length of time. It violates, for me and everyone I know, the >pre-existing trust we have in government." McGeady believes firmly >that if Hawash were "not of Arabic descent" he would never have been >treated in this pre-emptory manner: Instead of waiting in a prison >cell, "he'd be home waking up with his wife and kids every morning." > >At issue in Hawash's case is the 1984 material witness statute that >allows the government to hold a person whose testimony is "material >in a criminal proceeding" for an indeterminate time. The law is to >be used only when the witness is reticent and will likely flee the >country to avoid having to testify. But since the terror attacks >Ashcroft has transformed it into a tool of repression, using it to >put people behind bars for preventive detention. Ashcroft's approach >is to arrest first, investigate possible terrorist ties later -- a >patently unconstitutional practice under which the "witness" label >has become just a pretext. > >Back in November, the Washington Post did a stellar job trying to >uncover exactly how Ashcroft's Justice Department has used the >statute. The paper counted at least 44 people who were arrested as >material witnesses -- a remarkable journalistic achievement given >that it is nearly impossible to get information on who has been >arrested. Because the detentions are ostensibly to provide grand >jury testimony, judges seal the records and issue gag orders. It >plays perfectly into Ashcroft's obsession with secrecy. > >The paper found that twenty of the "witnesses" were released without >ever being asked to appear before a grand jury. And only two were >ever indicted on terrorism-related charges. (Another, Jose Padilla, >the so-called "dirty bomber," is being held without charge as an >enemy combatant.) > >Lives and families were destroyed by the incarcerations, with some >of the detentions lasting for months. Yet this statute imprisons >people who are not accused of doing anything wrong. > >As to checks on Ashcroft, Congress has been exceptionally meek. >Earlier this month House Judiciary Committee Chairman James >Sensenbrenner and ranking member John Conyers sent Ashcroft a letter >asking for details regarding each person detained as a material >witness. But this is likely to go nowhere. Congress has been >unwilling to call Ashcroft to account for his outrages against >liberty. Nearly everyone's intimidated. > >The courts have been a little better but not much. One federal judge >in New York ruled that the material witness statute could not be >used in the grand jury context, but that ruling is likely to be set >aside on appeal. Courts seem to be failing to vigilantly test the >government's claim that the men held on these warrants are a flight >risk. Hawash is an American with a good job, a nice home, an >American-born wife and three children. He's got just the kind of >vita that says he would be a cooperative witness. > >A federal judge has ordered Hawash detained "but not indefinitely," >with a closed-door hearing to review his status set for April 29. By >that time he will have spent more than five weeks in prison with no >formal accusation or charge against him. Welcome to Ashcroft's >America. > >[END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Thu Apr 24 19:09:02 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Thu Apr 24 20:57:58 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/24/2003 - "Reform Club moves to expel friend of Holocaust denier" Message-ID: ZGRAM - WHERE TRUTH IS DESTINY: NOW MORE THAN EVER! April 24, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Remember Gretta? Now Europe has another Gretta of sorts - a lady (literally!) who says out loud what few men dare to think: [START] The Independent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ London, Wednesday, April 23, 2003 Reform Club moves to expel friend of Holocaust denier By Ian Burrell Media and Culture Correspondent A former fashion model who married into aristocracy is facing expulsion from one of Britain's most historic private clubs over accusations of anti-Semitism. Lady Renouf of Kensington, the former wife of the late New Zealand financier Sir Frank "The Bank" Renouf, has been described as "unfit" to be a member of the Reform Club, in Pall Mall in London. The Reform was established 160 years ago as a bastion of liberal and progressive thought. Past members have included the writers Henry James, H G Wells, E M Forster and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. But not all literary figures are welcome. Lady Renouf's decision to invite to the club David Irving, the historian who was denounced by a High Court judge in 2000 as a racist, an anti-Semite and a falsifier of history, had already caused outrage among many fellow Reform members. Lady Renouf, who is in her fifties, has maintained that Irving has a right to freedom of speech. But an article published in The Independent on Sunday this month, highlighting her presence at an American conference of extreme right-wingers, may mean she has finally to bid farewell to the Reform. The article, written by Johann Hari, recounted his meetings with Lady Renouf at the Irvine Marriott Hotel in Orange County, California, where the conference took place last summer. She told Hari: "People act as though Judaism is just another religion like Christianity or Islam. It's not. It's a creed of domination and racial superiority." She said she was "firm friends" with Irving and had for two and a half months attended every day of the court case where the historian sued the American academic Deborah Lipstadt, after she denounced him as a "Holocaust denier". Irving spectacularly lost the case and was landed with costs of about ?2m. When Lady Renouf said goodbye to Hari in the hotel lobby she told him: "It's so good to see that so many young people are getting involved in our movement and seeing the truth about the Jews." . THE Reform Club has a reputation for tolerance. But this was seen as a step too far and signatures were collected for a requisition for expulsion. Lady Renouf grew up in Australia as Michele Mainwaring and she was crowned Miss Newcastle, New South Wales, in 1968. Her current interests include acting and studying "the psychology of religion". When she met Sir Frank she told him she was "Countess Griaznoff", the ex-wife of a Russian nobleman. They quickly married, in 1991, when the financier was 72 and she was 44. She stated on her marriage certificate that her father was dead. But during their six-week honeymoon in Australia, Sir Frank learnt that he did have a father-in-law after all -- a New South Wales truck driver called Arthur. Michele and Sir Frank got divorced. But Michele kept her title. With her looks, her name and her quirky academic interests, Lady Renouf became a prominent figure on London's intellectual party circuit. But her world could unravel next month when the Reform Club's general committee meets to consider her expulsion. [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Apr 25 18:25:53 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Fri Apr 25 20:18:03 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/25/2003 - "The 'Good War' and 'Defend America First'" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 25, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Another worthy book for your perusal! [START] The 'Good War' and Defend America First by Bruce Ramsey Garet Garrett was the most eloquent opponent of U.S. involvement in World War II. Unlike his jeremiads against the New Deal and the Cold War - "The Revolution Was" and "Rise of Empire" - he did not put his arguments against intervention into a book. They appeared as the anonymous editorial voice of the Saturday Evening Post. Week after week in 1940 and 1941, Garrett, the magazine's chief editorial writer, thundered against the foreign policy of Franklin Roosevelt. "This country now goes where it does not look and looks where it does not go," Garrett wrote in the issue of Sept. 7, 1940. "If it should come awake one morning to read in the newspaper headlines, or hear by the radio, that it had walked backward into war, it would take it no doubt as having been somehow inevitable from the first, and yet nobody would be able to say quite how or why it happened." Fifteen months later, on Dec. 7, 1941, it did happen in just that way - and not without many warnings. My new collection of Garrett's war editorials, Defend America First, tells much of the story of how Pearl Harbor happened - not the secret plottings, but the plottings in the open, the things obvious to anyone listening to the radio and reading the newspapers at the time. Much of it amounts to thinking on the meanings of words and acts, and arranging them with a sense of history. It is not the history of hindsight, but of what was known at the time, mostly things that have been forgotten in the 60 years since. The first editorial in the series is from the issue of April 8, 1939, dated five months before the German and Russian invasion of Poland. (The dates are about one month after the pieces were written.) Garrett writes: "Never was a stranger thing than that the American people should be inviting themselves to another world war before it happens. "At frequent intervals those who sample the waters of public emotion heave their questionnaires into the stream - such as, 'If England and France were attacked by the dictators, will this country have to do something about it?' or, 'Shall the democracies of the world at any cost, stand together?' - and when what comes up is put through the sieve that separates the ayes and noes, the tabulated result shows the steady onset of the idea that we shall have to save the world for democracy again. But you do not need the statistics. You can feel it. There is all at once an intellectual cult of interventionists. The feet of many pacifists are running in the paths toward war." Garrett's style is not modern, and may take some getting used to. You have just read a sentence of 86 words, which in the hands of most writers would turn the reader blue in the face. Garrett does it with grace. He was a self-educated man. Born in the 19th century on a horse-powered farm, he dropped out of grammar school and learned from reading books. He left home by jumping a train. By 1900 he was a financial journalist on Wall Street and by World War I was on the editorial board of the New York Times. In 1922 he began writing for the Saturday Evening Post, which was the most influential voice to the American middle class. In the 1930s he attacked the Roosevelt government's economic quackery and sabotage of the Constitution in many Post articles, some of the best of which are included in my first Garrett collection, Salvos Against the New Deal (Caxton, 2002). Garrett came to the preliminaries of World War II believing that World War I had been a total loss, and that the U.S. Treasury loans to Britain and France during that war and to Germany afterward had been a futile exercise in saving Europe. The course of wisdom in a European fight was to stay out of it. That did not make Garrett any kind of pacifist. Just after the fall of France, for the issue of July 20, 1940, he wrote: "It is too late to debate whether our foreign policy shall be that of the turtle or the bald eagle. The eagle is our symbol. A solitary people, devoted to peace, yet dangerous to any degree." He would have liked the yellow Gadsden flag with the motto, "Don't Tread on Me." To Garrett, the question was not whether Hitler was dangerous. That was obvious, and Garrett argued that German militarism justified a compensating military buildup. America had to get ready for a possible war with Germany. The question was whether there was any need to go to Europe and pick a fight with Germany. In the issue of Sept. 7, 1940, he wrote: "Who is going to put the German thing back? The British? They are not able. "Shall we do it? Unless we are willing to go to Europe and destroy it there, we may as well make our minds up now that we shall have to live in the same world with it, maybe for a long time, whether we like it or not. None the less, for that reason, only all the more, we should, we must, create on this continent the incomparable power of defense. After that we shall see. For after that we shall be again what we were, safe and free and dangerous." Safe and free and dangerous. That is much different from the cowering image one absorbs from the word "isolationist," which is the word Roosevelt and the war party flung at people like Garrett (and which is flung today upon LewRockwell.com). Roosevelt's idea was involvement by salami-slice. The first slice was that America should help the British and French by measures greater than words but "short of war." That came early in 1939, the last year of European peace. To Garrett, this was taking sides in a war about to erupt. If we would take sides, we would get drawn in. Also, the policy was Roosevelt's personally, done as a challenge to Congress to do anything about it. Today's reader might say, "Of course war is the President's policy." But the republican tradition was stronger then. Wrote Garrett in April 1939, of Roosevelt: "He cannot declare war. Only the Congress can do that. Nevertheless, he can, if he is so minded, provoke war. He can create situations and entanglements such as to make war inevitable." Which is what Roosevelt proceeded to do. One of his most famous moves was on Sept. 2,1940, two months after the fall of France, when, without asking Congress, he gave the British government 50 destroyers from the U.S. Navy. In exchange he got the use of British military bases in Canada and the Caribbean. Garrett responded in the Oct. 12, 1940, Saturday Evening Post: "Measures short of war. What, at first, did you understand that formula to mean? That England and France should have access to the private industrial resources of the United States, which would be internationally lawful, would not involve the Government at all, and would be still a tremendous advantage to the Allies, with Germany blockaded? But your Government understood it to mean much more than that; the British government understood it to mean much more... "So you see what else your Government does. As it leads the country to war, saying it will keep it out, it tells you only what it thinks it will be good for you to know, and cannot always afford to tell you the truth, because you may not have been enough accustomed to the idea. As, for example, when the news was out that your Government was negotiating with Great Britain for air and navy bases on the fringe of this hemisphere, it told you that this had nothing whatever to do with the fifty destroyers for which the British had put forth a great propaganda in this country. Simply, that was not so." In November 1940 came the national election, Franklin Roosevelt versus Wendell Willkie. It was a fine time for a democracy to offer the people a choice between peace or war, but it did not do that. It offered two candidates who were eager to be involved but unable to say so. Roosevelt brazenly lied, promising to keep the nation at peace. Garrett recounts how the propaganda for involvement diminished almost to zero before the election, only to come roaring back immediately afterward. Before he could be sworn in for a third term, Roosevelt announced that Britain had run out of credit, and that America's security required legislation that would grant him the power to give any amount of military supplies to any country he wanted. That was Lend-Lease. To Garrett it was the real declaration of war, and when it was enacted in March 1941, he flatly said that the argument about whether to go to war was over. In the issue of March 29, 1941, he wrote: "We have broken with our past. We have thrown away our New World, our splendid isolation, our geographical advantage of three to one against all aggressors, our separate political religion. There is no longer a New World, nor an Old World, but now one world in which the American people have been cast for a part they will have to learn as they go along. "There is no longer a Monroe Doctrine. In place of it there is an American Internationalism. We do not yet know what this means. "From now on for us there is no foreign war. Any war anywhere in the world is our war, provided only there is an aggressor to be destroyed, a democracy to be saved or an area of freedom to be defended." In defining the war as being for freedom - that is, for an ideology rather than the homeland - America, he wrote, would "assume a role in which it must either go on and on until it has gained moral hegemony of the whole world - or fail." Moral hegemony of the whole world. That was a new thought in the spring of 1941. Then, in June 1941, came the German attack on Russia. Then it was no longer a question of aid to Winston Churchill's Britain but aid also to Joseph Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And what would that mean? If Stalin prevailed over Hitler, Garrett wrote in the issue of Nov. 8, 1941, "Soviet Russia, in that case, would be the paramount land power of Europe. "What should we do about that? Having saved the world from Nazism, should we not be morally obligated to go on and save it from Bolshevism?" All this was written and published before Pearl Harbor. It is fitting that Defend America First is published by the Caxton Press of Caldwell, Idaho, which used to publish many libertarian and Old Right books, including Garrett's most famous essays, "The Revolution Was" (1944), "Ex America" (1951) and "Rise of Empire" (1952), and the collection of those three essays in The People's Pottage (1953). Many libertarians, who have old Caxton books on their shelves, assumed the publisher must have gone out of business. It is still there, as may be verified at www.caxtonpress.com. As Caxton's ownership passed through various members of the Gipson family, its management lost interest in political books, and, apart from Ayn Rand's Anthem, which has been a constant money-maker, and a couple of others, the offerings have tended to frontier tales, ghost towns, Indian stories and other Western Americana. The company's young leader, Scott Gipson, has an interest in political books, and is cautiously entering the field again. Following Salvos Against the New Deal, Defend America First is the second such book. April 22, 2003 [END] Bruce Ramsey is a journalist in Seattle. Email: bramsey@seattletimes.com From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sat Apr 26 04:43:59 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sat Apr 26 06:35:42 2003 Subject: ZGram - April 26, 2003 - "ADL to fork over almost 10 million" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 26, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: It's a weekend - let me take a break. Here is a tiny ray of hope. Isn't it nice to know that the ADL, that tax-supported hate-mongering outfit, had had to pocket another legal defeat? [START] Libel award against Anti-Defamation League upheld The Associated Press Wednesday, April 23, 2003 DENVER--A $9.75 million libel award against the Anti-Defamation League for publicly calling an Evergreen, Colo., couple anti-Semitic was upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court. William and Dorothy Quigley won the judgment in April 2000 after the ADL's remarks at a news conference. The incident arose out of a dispute between the Quigleys and neighbors Mitchell and Candice Aronson, who are Jewish. The original judgment was $10.5 million, but a judge reduced that to $9.75 million in 2001 because the Quigleys had won a separate but related judgment against the Aronsons over wiretapping violations. The ADL appealed the libel judgment, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the smaller award. ADL regional director Bruce DeBoskey declined to comment. The appeals court overturned the jury's finding that the ADL had invaded the Quigleys' privacy, saying the jury instructions were faulty. That decision had no effect on the libel award. The dispute dates to 1994. The Aronsons claimed the Quigleys made anti- Semitic remarks in phone conversations that the Aronsons taped. From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Apr 27 09:56:52 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Apr 27 11:49:23 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/27/2003 - "Excerpts of the 'leaked document' about pro-Israeli manipulation of public opinion" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 27, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Everybody talks about the leaked document that exposes pro-Israel lobby's manipulation of US opinion. What amazes me is that this should be a surprise. I tried to check the entire document but could not download a PDF file. Given the great interest in this piece, I am sending you the excerpts that were forwarded to me and send those of you who are curious for more to check out the Electronic Intifada of 25 April 2003 for yourself: [START] The Electronic Intifada has obtained, and today publishes in full, a document prepared for pro-Israel activists by the public relations firm The Luntz Research Companies and The Israel Project. The document spells out the tactics that Israel and its US advocates should use to maintain support for Israel and its hardline policies. The document, entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003," counsels pro-Israel advocates to keep invoking the name of Saddam Hussein, and to stress that Israel "was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people." Despite his solid support for Israel and Ariel Sharon, the document warns pro-Israel advocates not to compliment or praise President Bush. At the same time it acknowledges that Yasser Arafat has been a great asset to Israel because "he looks the part" of a "terrorist." The installation of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister, and potential replacement for Arafat, comes "at the wrong time," because he has the potential to improve the image of the Palestinians, and that could put the onus on Israel to return to negotiations. The document advises supporters of Israel to appear to affect a "balanced" tone, but admits that in arguing for Israel's policies, the illegal "settlements are our Achilles heel," for which there is no good defense. The document was commissioned by the Wexner Foundation, a private foundation that funds, among other pro-Israel initiatives, "Birthright Israel," a program that pays for young American Jews to take free trips to Israel. The Israel Project is an initiative of pro-Israel organizations, political consultants and businesspeople. The Luntz Research Companies is a leading public relations and opinion research firm. Here is some of the key advice the document provides to Israel and its advocates: * "Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview [of] Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European "allies." For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people." * "The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism." * "It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don't use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don't support George Bush. You antagonize the latter half unnecessarily every time you compliment the President. Don't do it." * ""SECURITY" sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can't just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates." [end] (SOURCE: http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1395.shtml From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Apr 28 18:56:01 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Apr 28 20:57:02 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/28/2003 - "Get yourself a Rachel Corrie Poster" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 28, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: This one is really important. Therefore, I am giving you the URL at the beginning and at the end. Go to http://ifamericansknew.org/rachelcorrie/poster.htm - you will find this essay there, along with instructions as to what you can do. Here is the essay itself: [START] On March 16th, an Israeli soldier driving a bulldozer two-stories high crushed to death 23-year-old Rachael Corrie, an American nonviolent human rights protestor. According to numerous witnesses and photographic documentation, she was killed intentionally. Rachel and a handful of others practicing Gandhian nonviolence in the Gaza Strip had been pleading with Israeli soldiers for two hours not to destroy a Palestinian family home. Suddenly, the Israeli bulldozer operator began driving his giant bulldozer toward the home, Rachel sitting in its path. Witnesses report that she then stood up on the mound of debris and dirt pushed by the bulldozer blade and looked straight at the operator through the window. He continued, and she was pulled underneath the tractor, its blade crushing her. He then backed up, running over her again, burying her deeper into the dirt. Three friends ran to Rachel and dug her out. According to an eye-witness report by Joe Smith of Kansas City: "Her body was in a mangled condition, she said 'my back is broken!' but nothing else. Her eyes were open and she was clearly in a great deal of pain." A Palestinian ambulance made it through Israeli forces, and took her to the hospital, where she died. Reports are unclear whether it was her fractured skull or the suffocation caused by crushed lungs and being buried in the dirt that caused her death. George Bush has yet to condemn this atrocity by an "ally" who receives more US funding than any other nation on earth, over $10 million per day. Congress has yet to pass a resolution condemning this use of American tax money to kill an American citizen. The U.S. State Department has yet to impose any diplomatic sanctions whatsoever against a government whose "apology" for one of its soldiers crushing a young, peaceful American student has consisted of calling it "regrettable," and blaming Rachel for the Israeli soldier's decision to kill her. The American media have yet to accord this horror the attention it would normally merit, if it had been done by any other country on earth, including the U.S. government. We heard about Chandra Levy for many months. We read about the students in Tiananman Square for years. We heard news reports about Rachel Corrie for approximately two days. Apart from her hometown Washington state newspapers, there were virtually no follow up stories - no stories about the memorial service held the next day in Gaza that was broken up by an Israeli tank, while the bulldozer that killed her drove slowly, exultantly past. No stories about Israeli forces blocking the ambulance carrying her remains from exiting Gaza. No stories about Rachel's grieving parents and siblings, about their inability to travel to Palestine. No stories. This erasing of Rachel, her message, and her death is unconscionable. It is also extremely dangerous. Such silence is giving Israel a green light to escalate its killing of civilians, of peaceful protesters, of young girls. The day after Rachel was killed the Israeli military killed another 9 Palestinian civilians, including three children, the following weeks still more. Israel has killed Americans before. On March 29, 2002, Israeli forces killed a 21-year-old American in Ramallah as she held her baby on her lap. She was Palestinian-American, so perhaps that's why mainstream media largely failed to report this death. On June 8, 1967, Israeli forces attacked a US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, killing 34 American servicemen, injuring 172. And nothing happened. The story was universally buried, the attack unmentioned in history books and reports on the Middle East. The families of those killed were given moderate sums for the loss of their young sons, husbands, brothers, fathers. After many years of finagling, Israel finally paid the US a minute fraction of the value of this ship - with no interest for the years it had delayed. Historians have since written that the fact that Israel was able to attack a US ship and kill and maim American servicemen, with virtually no consequences, convinced Israeli hardliners that Israel could, whenever it wanted, get away with murder. Rachel Corrie's death may prove to be another pivotal point of escalation. If the world -- in particular, if Americans -- allow this incident to go virtually unnoticed, then our lack of outcry will give a green light to an Israeli regime known for its brutality: If Israel can get away with using an American financed, American-built bulldozer to kill a young American woman, then it will feel it can get away with anything. This may have already begun. Several months ago over 1,200 American and Israeli professors wrote: "We are deeply worried that "the 'fog of war' could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing." Now, following Rachel's death, Israel seems to have begun a trial run in Tul Karem, rounding up 1,000 to 2,000 Palestinians. Israeli Historian Ilan Pappe reports [April 2]: "Under the cover of the Iraqi war it seems that the Israeli government is stepping up its preparations for major operations against the population in the occupied territories." It is time for the world to send an unequivocal message: No more. This time we will stop it. It is time for Americans to turn the light bright red: Israel, we will not forget Rachel Corrie. No longer will we look the other way. No more may you use American money to kill children, American money to kill Americans, American money to crush young women to death, American money to kill peace. No more. ___________________ Alison Weir, the founder of If Americans Knew, is a freelance journalist who traveled throughout the Palestinian Territories in winter, 2001. She is the mother of a daughter born the same year as Rachel Corrie. [END] Here is the URL again: http://ifamericansknew.org/rachelcorrie/poster.htm From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Tue Apr 29 17:44:14 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Tue Apr 29 19:54:26 2003 Subject: ZGram - 4/29/2003 - "Friday May 2nd: The Zundel Immigration Hearing" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! April 29, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Here is an update on Ernst Zundel's illegal imprisonment by the Canadian government, taken in part from our regular Power Letter to supporters: As you will remember, there is going to be another immigration hearing on Friday, May 2nd. This time, Ernst will have legal representation - something that was difficult to attain previously since there seems to have been a concerted telephone campaign by his detractors, meant to intimidate and perhaps even terrorize any legal firm or individual attorney who was contemplating taking Ernst on as a client. This was backed up by some vicious media - and I mean, really vicious! And, sad to say, it worked! All of us who know, respect and love Ernst Zundel have worked day and night behind the scenes, and I am glad to say, prospects are slowly changing in his favor. For a start, there will be some picketing by Zundel supporters at the hearing this Friday. If you are free and in the area, consider joining. For further information, go to the Zundelsite, www.zundelsite.org If you are not in the area, you can still help. Write, fax or email to the Immigration Minister. Remember, he's the one who thought nothing of prejudging this case - he is the one who threatened, to please the Shrill Minority, that he would see to it that Ernst would not be allowed to stay in Canada and would, instead, be deported. His exact words were: "Watch me!" Not biased in the least - right? So write him, and give him a piece of your mind. No need to be lengthy. Be classy. Be clear and to the point! Here is the contact information: Immigration Minister Denis Coderre House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Telephone: (613) 995-6108 Fax: (613) 995-9755 Email: Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca We have two carefully researched legal actions initiated in the United States. We are feverishly involved in exploring half a dozen other avenues to bring relief to Ernst. We have spent a lot of money already, and huge bills are looming, but the brutal truth we cannot afford to ignore is that Ernst is still being held in maximum detention in Thorold, a small town near Toronto. It's now been more than two months since his unlawful arrest and the subsequent leg irons and other restrictions - and I still can't quite believe what happened, given that he was guilty of nothing! He wrote to me, referring to the bizarre claim on the flimsiest of "evidence" that he is a "security risk": [START] They claim that falsely, but they have made their claim stick so far, that I am in fact "an enemy of the state of Canada" - so "dangerous" that two guards take me everywhere I have to go. Every half hour, day and night, a guard comes by my cell and looks into this brightly lit cage and then writes down what he sees me do - eat, write, sketch?That's the new reality for your gentle husband and friend. The guards here are far more human, polite and professional than they were in that disgusting Blount County Jail, but their orders are, Ingrid, that when I want to take a shower, again two guards have to stand by the locked shower door. I have to call them to unlock the metal door to the shower to lead me back to my cell. Those are their orders, Ingrid my dear wife - it's not their fault that they are cruel; they do their job. Everybody has to follow orders. If the security chief of this jail needs to see me to discuss something with me, or bring me papers, mail etc., this high-ranking official has to ask the guards on duty to open either my feeding slot or my cell door. I have to endure this until such a time that some Canadian judge or a group of Appeal Court judges end this, for the Jews in CSIS and at the Prime Minister's Office have the power and use the taxpayers' money, as they have always done in my case, to punish me mercilessly because I am a German who will not bow down to their lies about our father's generation. For the moment, I am in their total control. If the present trend continues, I am working myself into a niche in history like Rudolf Hess. Maybe that's why I always had such empathy for that tragic figure of German history. I will try my darndest, with all the brain power at my command, to see what I can still do with my reduced possibilities in legal moves and, sad to say, the diminishing legal help at my disposal. Do not be disheartened, my lady, by setbacks, delays, hurts, unfairness and chicanery. Get advice, but decide inside your heart and soul. Thank God we are no longer teenagers - that this crisis has come along at this time in our lives! [END] To which a supporter replied: [START] I felt I should give you a different perspective on your above thoughts. Ernst is indeed a threat to the security of Canada, but of course not in the way that the Canadian government stated it. More than that, Ernst is a major threat to the entire New World Order, and the globalist overlords know it. The main pillar of the New World Order is that the Allies were the forces of good and the Nazis were the forces of evil. Therefore, this triumph of good is the justification for the globalist agenda and the United Nations and all the other international organizations and agreements that flowed from the Allied victory. The chief "evidence" for this is the alleged Nazi gas chambers. From this follows the Religion of the Holocaust, which is the dominant religion of our day. [This Religion] does not tolerate dissent, and it has transformed Christianity into Christian Zionism. Ernst's work threatens the main ideological justifications for the New World Order. I do not have to explain why to you. So, in a way that the globalist overlords will not state publicly, Ernst is indeed a major threat to them and their system. They do not dare to state the real reasons why they seized him. They now have him in their grasp, and since they did not capture him by law, they certainly are not going to release him by law. They simply have the power to take him, and they decided that now is the time to do so, precisely because they see him as a threat in the context of their ongoing agenda to remake the world. Law has nothing to do with it, and therefore a legal defense for Ernst is irrelevant. If the legitimate laws of the United States and Canada were in effect, Ernst would still be in Tennessee. Or better yet, he would be in Canada with Canadian citizenship, never having been forced to leave. But in that case, the New World Order would not exist. [end] I replied immediately, arguing that I did not agree, since trying to free Ernst by means of legal strategies is really the only way we can effect a change. We cannot bust him out of jail. The legal way is all we have left, and it is by no means a futile effort. The violation has been so egregious that I cannot imagine an American judge not seeing that something needs to be done - that a man should not have to be locked up in maximum security, be shacked with leg irons and handcuffs, and be prevented from being reunited with his family for 20 years for having "missed" a bureaucratic appointment his attorney had asked to be rescheduled! I am working with two attorneys here. We are in touch with two other attorneys in Germany. As I alluded to above, Doug Christie, Ernst's long-time Canadian attorney, was able to free himself from his other commitments for a few weeks and is consulting with Ernst in Ontario on our next legal move even as I am putting the final touches on this letter. I feel we have started to take back control. [END] Please do your part! If you can, attend the rally. If you can't, call, write or fax! Once again - here is the contact information: Immigration Minister Denis Coderre House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Telephone: (613) 995-6108 Fax: (613) 995-9755 Email: Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca