From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sat Aug 2 04:34:59 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sat Aug 2 06:58:27 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/1/2003 - "Britons blamed for 'Nazi' attacks" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 1, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: What we need on this continent is a scientific study of the effects of relentless Holocaust indoctrination in public schools. The article below might serve as a stimulus for a serious scholar to tackle a politically incorrect topic: [START] Telegraph | News | Britons blamed for 'Nazi' attacks It appears that the effects of Holocaust education and the media Holocaust are having the effect of starting racially motivated attacks on Germans Friday 1 August 2003 Telegraph Network Britons blamed for 'Nazi' attacks By Kate Connolly in Berlin (Filed: 01/08/2003) German schoolchildren visiting Britain are being attacked on the streets because of British "prejudices and stereotypes" about Germany, London's ambassador to Berlin said yesterday. Sir Peter Torry said he was alarmed at the number of physical and verbal assaults on young Germans taking place "across the country" which seemed to be motivated by anti-German feelings. A 15-year old boy was taken to hospital in Canterbury six weeks ago after youths taunted his school group and branded them "Nazis" in the latest incident. Sir Peter told The Telegraph: "It is hard to explain why it is that 15-year-old kids in 2003 are attacking Germans on the streets and calling them Nazis when neither they nor their parents have direct experience of the war. "We need to ask ourselves where these prejudices and stereotypes are coming from." The ambassador said since taking up his post two months ago he had been shocked by the number of letters he had received from German parents and teachers about such attacks. The embassy cited five specific examples of physical assaults in just over a year, in Hastings, East Sussex; Frinton-on-Sea, Essex; Morden, south London, and Bolton, Lancashire, as well as the Canterbury incident. As 13,000 German schoolchildren visit Britain annually the real figure could be much higher. A spokesman added that verbal attacks were not unusual. Sir Peter said: "If there is a perception amongst our kids that Germans today are Nazis, are of the type that led to the Third Reich and the catastrophes of the Third Reich I think that is something we should be concerned about because it doesn't correspond to the reality. "Given that Germany is our closest ally in the EU and that something like 300,000 jobs in Britain are dependent on German investment, these sorts of stereotypes can only be harmful." He added that a number of senior German officials had told him they were concerned about the persistent stereotyping of Germans in Britain. Sir Peter blamed a combination of factors, including the drastic decline in German language teaching in British schools and the "preoccupation" with the Nazi era in history lessons, as possible reasons for the attacks. "We should try to get across the message through the media, through the teaching of our kids, that there's more to German history than the 12 years of the German Reich - the achievements of Germany since and before the war," he said. "But this is unfortunately no longer a priority because German is no longer taught as a second language." He said he would broach the topic with Charles Clarke, the education minister, who recently criticised the "Hitlerisation" of history teaching in British schools. Sir Peter, who was born in Germany in the late 1940s where his father was stationed with the military and was ambassador to Madrid before taking up the Berlin post, emphasised that depictions of Germans in popular British culture only reinforced certain stereotypes. "Part of the stereotyping comes from the repetition and rehash of the war films and comedy programmes like Fawlty Towers," Sir Peter added. Ilse Brigitte Eitze-Schutz, the head of an exchange programme at the German conference of education ministers, said concern was growing about the negative treatment received by Germans in Britain. She added: "We're observing these tendencies with growing apprehension and think it due to the fact that foreign language learning in Britain - particularly of German - is decreasing and that many schools in Britain have no interest in forming partnerships with German schools." [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sat Aug 2 04:37:10 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sat Aug 2 06:58:34 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/2/2003 - "Movie on Christ's death: Trouble writ large for both sides" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 2, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Today's treat is a movie review: [START] New York Times | August 2, 2003 Months Before Debut, Movie on Death of Jesus Causes Stir By LAURIE GOODSTEIN With his movie about the death of Jesus under attack as anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson is trying to build an audience and a defense for his project by screening it for evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, right-wing pundits, Republicans, a few Jewish commentators and Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Mr. Gibson has poured $25 million of his money into the movie, "The Passion," calling it the most authentic and biblically accurate film about Jesus' death. Now, seven months before its scheduled release on Ash Wednesday, the film has set off an uproar that both sides warning it could undermine years of bridge building between Christians and Jews. The selected audiences who have seen the film defend it as the most moving, reverential - and violent - depiction of Jesus' suffering and death ever put on screen. Detractors, who have read a script but not seen the film, say it is a modern version of the medieval Passion plays that portrayed Jews as "Christ killers" and stoked anti-Jewish violence. The dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin. Scholars say that belies the assertion of total authenticity, because the Romans spoke Greek. Mr. Gibson had said the film would not have English subtitles. But it is being screened with them, the marketing director, Paul Lauer, said, and they may remain. "The Passion" has no distributor. Mr. Lauer said "two major studios" were interested or Mr. Gibson might distribute it himself. The controversy has been cast by many of his supporters as the Jews versus Mel Gibson. But it began when several Roman Catholic scholars voiced concern about the project because of Mr. Gibson's affiliation with a splinter Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews. Mr. Gibson has been screening "The Passion" for a few weeks for friendly audiences, but has refused to show it to his critics, including members of Jewish groups and biblical scholars. In Washington, it was shown to the Web gossip Matt Drudge, the columnists Cal Thomas and Peggy Noonan and the staffs of the Senate Republican Conference and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and others. In Colorado Springs, the capital of evangelical America, the film drew raves. A convention of the Legionaries of Christ, a traditionalist Roman Catholic order of priests, saw a preview, as did Rush Limbaugh. Audiences wept, and many were awestruck. "Mel Gibson is the Michelangelo of this generation," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals. "It's going to be a classic," said Deal W. Hudson, publisher of Crisis, a conservative Catholic magazine. "It's going to be the go-to film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the Passion of Christ." Mr. Gibson has said his movie will be true to the Gospel account of the last hours of Jesus' life. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ greatly, presenting Rashomon-like accounts of the roles of the Romans and Jews in the Crucifixion. A committee of Bible scholars who read a version of the script said that it was not true to Scripture or Catholic teaching and that it badly twisted Jewish leaders' role in Jesus' death. The problem, the scholars said, is not that Mr. Gibson is anti-Semitic, but that his film could unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence. One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through, the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations." Mr. Gibson, who directed and was a co-author of the script, is vehement that any criticism is based on an outdated script that was stolen. He declined an interview, and his company, Icon Productions, said it was showing the movie just to selected journalists and critics. Mr. Gibson said in a statement: "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie. `The Passion' is a film meant to inspire, not offend." The furor began in March, when the committee of scholars, five Catholics and four Jews, asked Icon Productions to show them the script. Five scholars hold endowed chairs at their universities, and all have long been engaged in interfaith dialogue. The group was assembled by the staff at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Those organizations were wary, because they had spent years drafting guidelines for ridding Passion plays of anti-Semitism. Some of the same scholars had consulted on the overhaul of the most famous Passion play, at Oberammergau, Germany. The scholars say the other reason for concern was Mr. Gibson's strain of Catholicism. He built and belongs to a church in Los Angeles that is part of a growing but fractured movement known as "Catholic traditionalism." Considered beyond the pale even by conservatives, the traditionalists reject the Second Vatican Council and every pope since then, and they conduct Mass in Latin. Mr. Gibson also set off alarms among the scholars when reports quoted him as saying his script had drawn on the diaries of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century mystic whose visions included extrabiblical details like having the Jewish high priest order that Jesus' cross be built in the Jewish temple. Icon did not respond to the request to see the script. But someone leaked a copy to one of the scholars, the Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, a professor of social ethics and the director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies program at the Catholic Theological Union. Father Pawlikowski said in an interview that the script came from a friend who got it from another person whom he did not know. The scholars sent a report to Icon complaining about the script, again receiving no response. After excerpts of the report appeared in the news media - both sides say the other leaked it - the scholars circulated their complaints. "This was one of the worst things we had seen in describing responsibility for the death of Christ in many many years," Father Pawlikowski said. In particular, the scholars objected that the Jewish priest, Caiaphas, was depicted as intimidating Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, into going along with the Crucifixion. Several people who saw the film last month said the version they saw had that portrayal. The scholars said that section distorts the fact that the Romans were the occupying power and that the Jewish authorities were their agents. Mr. Lauer, marketing director for Icon, said Mr. Gibson's rendering was not anti-Semitic, but simply followed the New Testament. "There are some sympathetic to Christ and some who clearly want to get rid of this guy," he said. "And that's clearly scriptural. You can't get away from the fact that there are some Jews who wanted this guy dead." The script that the scholars read was dated October 2002, when, Mr. Lauer acknowledged, filming began. But scripts often change after shooting starts, he added. Icon threatened to sue the scholars and the bishops' conference. The bishops soon apologized and said it had neither authorized the scholars' panel nor the report. Mr. Gibson has sought to mend fences with the bishops. He met recently in Washington with officials of the conference and has shown the film to Cardinals Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia and Francis George of Chicago, as well as Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. But the scholars and the Anti-Defamation League have not backed down. They are pressing Mr. Gibson to show them the rough cut that he has been screening. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, said, "If you say this is not anti-Semitic and this is a work of love and reconciliation, why are you afraid to show it to us?" "There is no way on God's green earth," Mr. Lauer said, "that any of those people will be invited to a screening. They have shown themselves to be dishonorable." People who have seen the movie say it is brutally graphic, dwelling at length on a scourging scene that renders Jesus a bloody piece of flesh before he is even nailed to the Cross. He is beaten with a leather strap studded with metal points that, when slapped across a tabletop, stick in the wood like spikes. Roman soldiers administer the beating in the film, Mr. Hudson, the Catholic publisher, said. "By the time the Romans get through with him," Mr. Hudson said, "you've forgotten what the Jews might have done." Mr. Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Mr. Lauer said, by underscoring Christianity's roots. The actor who plays Jesus, Jim Caviezel, appears Semitic, a far cry from the Nordic icon of popular paintings. [END] ===== (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/national/02GIBS.html?ex=1060401600&en=0642 d3f293255ab9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE ) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Aug 3 02:37:09 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Aug 3 04:53:45 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/3/2003 - "The Observer: 'We were war victims too, Germans insist'" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 3, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Balance was long overdue, and changes are finally coming. It is finally happening - as the article below documents. This is a political glove in the ring - make no mistake about it. If this project gets off the ground in Germany, others will follow. That's how we are going to win! Take a look: [START] We were war victims too, Germans insist Hannah Cleaver in Berlin Sunday August 3, 2003 The Observer The photographs show exiles, pathetic bundles of belongings strapped to their backs or clutched in their arms, in grainy black and white trudging through Europe to an unknown future. New laws meant that, because of their ethnic origins, these people had to abandon their homes and any possessions they could not carry and leave a country where they suddenly had no place. But this is not the infamous Nazi ethnic cleansing of Jews, Poles or Russians: these were Germans - some of the 15 million expelled from European countries following the defeat of the Third Reich. The Germans as victims have been historically omitted in the face of the Holocaust, the multiple invasions and the Blitz. Modern Germany was born soaked in collective guilt for the horrors the country had inflicted. That guilt is part of the national psyche. Those who tried to speak about German suffering were collectively shouted down, portrayed as revisionists or neo-Nazis. Many were. But as the decades pass, payments are slowly being made to some of the Nazis' victims and efforts are under way to return looted property, and increasing numbers of Germans feel able to talk about the losses they suffered. A hesitant trend, sparked by G?nter Grass's recent book involving the 1945 sinking of a ship packed with German refugees fleeing Soviet troops, is leading to a re-examination of the German experience. This year's 60th anniversary of the 'firestorm' bombing of Hamburg by the RAF brought graphic accounts of the slaughter and provoked debate over the justification for burning tens of thousands of people to death. And now efforts are being made to commemorate the suffering of Germans driven from Eastern Europe. Led by the Association of the Banished, the plan is for a museum and centre dealing with the expulsion of Germans from countries which include the former Czechoslovakia and Poland. Erika Steinbruch, conservative MP and head of the association, told The Observer: 'We want to make it clear what happened to these people, the 15 million who were thrown out of their homelands in the Baltics, Romania, so many countries. They were chased out because of their German ethnicity. 'We want to look at how Germany changed as a result of these people coming into the country and bringing with them lots of traditions that made a difference to Germany. We also want to help in making it impossible that such banishments ever happen again in Europe. 'This discussion is necessary. Every life is equal. The Jews who suffered in Germany were German. There were Germans in the Balkans who lost their homelands after the Hitler-Stalin pact. These were Germans who suffered under Hitler. 'There is a more relaxed discussion now. That's necessary. It is part of the process of self-discovery, of the very complicated moral problems Germany has with itself. This is only just starting. I'm very optimistic we can do this.' She has political support, and backing from intellectuals within and outside Germany, but has come up against resistance to its focus on German victims as well as the idea of basing it in Berlin. Recently 65 politicians, intellectuals and authors wrote an open letter against the association's nationalism. Signatories included German parliamentary president Wolfgang Thierse, Grass, Czech Deputy Prime Minister Petr Mares, and former Polish Foreign Minister Vladislav Bartoszewski. 'The design of such a centre as a predominantly national project... awakes the mistrust of our neighbours and cannot be in the joint interests of our countries. It carries the danger of setting the suffering of one against that of the other and to neglect the differing causes and contexts of expulsion.' [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Aug 4 05:22:18 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Aug 4 07:42:16 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/4/2003 - "How media treats Zundel" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 4, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Paul Fromm, who is the on-location legal representative for Ernst, sent me the following, to which I would like to add a brief comment: [START] Dear Free Speech Supporter: Most people rely on the media for their news and information. The following news story is an excellent example of how our mass media keep us ignorant of essential facts. Sometimes, they outright lie and slander, especially those set up by the enemies of free speech for defamation and destruction. Sometimes, it's more subtle. I'd like you to examine Adrian Humphreys' report in the NATIONAL POST (July 31, 2003). Humphreys was present through most of the three days of the Zundel hearings this week. His is the most extensive report in the mainline press. Unlike the CSIS rant against Zundel, it is relatively free -- not entirely -- of loaded phrases "holocaust denier", to be sure. It presents the facts in a reasonably balanced manner. On the surface, it appears complete and fair, but it isn't! I've included my own report on the last day of the Zundel hearing. Three important things happened: 1. Doug Christie asked the judge to recuse himself for bias; 2. the judge granted the government's request for yet another secret hearing, where the accused will be kept in the dark as to the witnesses and evidence presented against him; and 3. there was extensive discussion of Ernst Zundel's deteriorating medical condition and the judge promised action to improve conditions in prison where he's denied a pillow, herbal medication, a pen, a chair, highlighters and post-it notes. Is the light beginning to dawn? The apparently fair report left the last two items out. These items would enrage most people and make even many anti-Zundelites feel sympathy toward him. However, the reader, unless he's on the Internet, will never know these shocking facts. Is Humphreys a slick propagandist? It's hard to say. We don't know what he wrote. Perhaps, he wrote a full report and his editor trimmed it. Regardless, the power to select, the power to omit, can sometimes be an even more potent weapon for deceit than outright lies. [END] Next follows Adrian Humphrey's July 31, 2003 National Post write-up: [START] TORONTO - Ernst Zundel's lawyer yesterday asked the judge hearing the national security case against the prominent Holocaust denier to step down for showing "open hostility" toward his client. Douglas Christie accused Mr. Justice Pierre Blais of the Federal Court of Canada of "badgering and accusing the witness of lying" and intervening during Mr. Zundel's testimony in a manner "more aggressive than the prosecutors.'' "You have entered into the arena and expressed hostility to the accused," Mr. Christie said at the start of yesterday's hearing, a continuation of the lengthy detention review of Mr. Zundel. The federal government has declared him a threat to national security as the alleged patriarch of the violent white supremacist movement. Mr. Christie gave as examples comments he said Judge Blais made during Tuesday's cross-examination of Mr. Zundel, including telling him to stop "snaking around" the facts; that he does not believe his testimony about who runs the Zundel Web site; and that the more Mr. Zundel talks, the less the judge believes him. Judge Blais' reported remarks suggest he has made up his mind on the matter prior to hearing all the evidence, Mr. Christie said in making a formal motion for the judge to stand down. He said a new judge should replace him, one who has not demonstrated "open hostility" toward Mr. Zundel. The issue of Judge Blais' impartiality is more crucial here than in most court proceedings. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act governing national security certificate cases -- when the government declares a non-citizen a threat to the nation and orders him deported -- there is no appeal of the sole judge's decision. "Without the means of other judicial supervision, it is all the more reason to ensure that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias," Mr. Christie said. "You are, therefore, a court of last resort." Donald MacIntosh, the lead lawyer for the government, rejected Mr. Christie's claims, calling them "specious." "No reasonable observer would draw those conclusions," he told Judge Blais. "You were merely alerting the witness ... that you have some doubts." He said Judge Blais has "demonstrated even-handedness" because the judge has also interjected to redirect government lawyers during their questioning. Judge Blais said the issue was extremely serious and charted new territory for the national security certificate process. As such, he would need time to think about the motion. "It is very interesting," he said. "Interesting enough to think about." After close to an hour deliberating in private, Judge Blais returned to say he would continue with the bail portion of the review and rule on the motion for him to step down after a transcript of the previous day's hearing was available for review. He said he would deliver a decision when the hearing resumes in September. Outside of court, representatives of Canadian Jewish groups who are monitoring the hearing expressed confidence in Judge Blais' impartiality. Anita Bromberg, in-house counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, said Judge Blais is fair and astute. "I agreed with the judge's comments that Zundel's attempts at avoidance on the issue of whether he exerts control over the content of the Zundel Web site were simply not believable." Ms. Bromberg expressed dismay at Mr. Christie's motion, saying: "Fairness is not only owed to Mr. Zundel but to all Canadians." Len Rudner, a spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the judge's comments were focused and qualified. "I do not believe these comments represent bias on the part of the justice. Just because the motion was put forward in no way means that there was bias and in no way means that Zundel will not get a fair trial." Paul Fromm, a long-time activist with the far right who acts as a legal representative for Mr. Zundel in Mr. Christie's absence, said the judge's words call the process into question. "The comments made to Mr. Zundel that the judge didn't believe him tainted the rest of the trial. I don't think Ernst Zundel can be confident that he is being given an impartial or unbiased hearing," he said. Mr. Zundel was certified as a security threat and has been held in solitary confinement while Judge Blais reviews the reasonableness of the government's declaration. Mr. Zundel is slated for deportation to his native Germany, where he faces a charge of inciting hatred. [END] Ingrid's comments: Here I would like to put in a word for Adrian Humphreys. I personally don't know this reporter, but I have in the past been embarrassed by criticism from our own people about his write-ups. I considered that criticism poorly focused and insulting, and I have been impressed by his calm and rational replies. Humphreys works for the National Post, a paper that has been anything but fair in its coverage of the Zundel struggle. He has no editorial control and certainly can't choose the headlines. That he got the "snaking around" comment in by the judge is a feat. How would a Jew feel if a judge told him in a hearing that the more he talked, the less was he believable, that he was "snaking around"? You'd never hear the end of it from B'nai Brith! And Paul Fromm is right - we don't know how much might have been written about the request for another hearing in camera, and about Ernst's very serious health concerns, of which I only learned a few days ago. We cannot have the Canadian public feel even a twinge of guilt, can we, for holding this man in inhuman detention, now for six months already - when all he "missed" was an "immigration interview" that was never scheduled to begin with, and of which he was never aware? I thought this write-up, truncated though it might have been, at least refrained from calling him names! And speaking of health concerns, here I want to add something else that Ernst might be upset about that I am putting it out on the air, but I have been sufficiently troubled that I feel I simply have to do it. And it is this: A supporter sent me a greatly enlarged color photo as part of one of the media write-ups, and I don't like at all what it reveals. Ernst has a look on his face I have never seen before. I don't know how to describe it. There is a big red bruise on his face near his left ear that even shows up on his ear itself, and there is a very noticeable swelling protruding from out of his ear. There is also some blood and a large blister on his lips. I asked him twice if he has been physically abused. He denied it. He did not sound convincing to me. He has repeatedly said in letters to supporters, "I am being treated correctly." In my opinion, he is saying that too much, with too much emphasis, over and over again. I have at least ten copies of such letters with that statement. He said to me when I pressed him about what I see in that picture, "When that picture was taken, I was very disturbed." I should also state, for the sake of fairness, that the photo was taken, as far as I know, while he was still in Thorold, right after he asked SIRC to look into the revelations in Covert Entry, the book that documents CSIS knowledge of the 1995 parcel bomb that was sent to the Zundel-Haus from Vancouver. Ernst came to that Thorold/Niagara Falls hearing, not looking at anyone, not greeting anyone. His supporters, some of them near tears, were very upset that he did not acknowledge their presence. Immediately after the hearing, he was transferred to Rexdale, one of Canada's most notorious and unpleasant prisons. The first time he was allowed to call out, he said to me, with three guards standing at his elbow, "Hess had it easy...", referring to Rudolf Hess's lifelong incarceration at Spandau that ended in his murder - at age 93, if I remember right. When I pressed Ernst about the strange look on his face in that picture and what looks like a large bruise on his face, in connection with his odd behavior during that hearing, he avoided giving me a direct answer but only said: "I have to obey rules. I was told not to 'signal' to anyone. I was not allowed to wave or shake hands. If prison rules are broken, it could mean weeks of no telephone or no access to canteen materials. It would mean I could not write or draw or call collect. These guards have strict rules, they are dealing with violent criminals. I am probably the only dissident in all of Canada." He added, but not energetically the way he often speaks, that I should not "imagine" something that wasn't there, and he said specifically, "I am not being beaten. I would tell you." I'm not so sure. You make of it what you will. I am so upset about this picture, I feel like offering myself as a hostage so Ernst can get out and have an honest doctor look at his condition and get a good feel for what is going on. Or should we do what some Zundel supporters have already offered - to alternately offer themselves as Prisoners of Conscience Substitutes to register a public protest that WOULD get adequate media attention?! How many of you would be willing to volunteer to spend a week in the slammer to know what it feels like, and to give Ernst Zundel some relief? I would. I already know what it's like, since I did part of my internship working with juveniles in detention. I can tell you, jail is not a pleasant place - and what is happening inside does not often get told on the outside. From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Tue Aug 5 05:39:05 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Tue Aug 5 07:57:15 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/5/2003 - "Grant Bristow at the CJC" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 5, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Now here is an interesting development indeed! Grant Bristow, the CSIS mole who was filtered into the Toronto-based Heritage Front to discredit this white/ethnic organization and who was "outed" by investigative reporter, Bill Dunphy, was recently the honored guest of guess-who? The Canadian Jewish Congress! This from Paul Fromm. Read on and think hard: [START] Dear Free Speech Supporter: The July, 2003 issue of CONGRESS CONTACT, which describes itself as "the news magazine of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region" reveals a fascinating meeting at which CSIS spy Grant Bristow briefed the CJC's executive. The meeting brought together two mortal enemies of free speech and dissent in this country -- our out-of-control spook agency and the Canadian Jewish Congress. Grant Bristow was inserted by Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service into a circle of individuals around Wolfgang Droege that would become the Heritage Front. I argued before SIRC in 1994 that CSIS's spying on the HF was contrary to its own enabling legislation. The HF was not involved in espionage, sabotage or sedition. It was not run by a foreign power. These are what constitute the definition of a threat to national security and would make a group subject to CSIS's scrutiny. In fact, as a White rights protest and advocacy group, the HF neatly fit the definition: " lawful advocacy, protest or dissent." Such activity the CSIS Act emphatically says is NOT a threat to national security. Yet, CSIS and/or its political masters was out of control then as now. Bristow was a major source of funds for the HF. As we'll show in upcoming evidence at the CSIS national security certificate hearings for Ernst Zundel, Bristow frequently advocated violence against Jews and anarchist opponents like the ARA. He organized some of the harassment activities against the ARA, which increasingly deflected the HF from a positive pro-White message and into the realm of petty street violence -- the very thing that would discredit it and give the government an excuse to move against it. Bristow compiled a target list of prominent Toronto Jews. He was far more than a mere informant or spy. He was a player, a strong advocate of violence and lawlessness and an anti-Jewish agitator. Amazingly, now he pops up to brief the Canadian Jewish Congress. Bristow, it seems, was not just an information gatherer, but an agent provocateur sent to destroy the HF. It would be fascinating to have the following sentence explained: "It also appears that the CJC played an integral role in the demise of neo-Nazi groups of the time as well according to Bristows report to the Executive." Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION ===== Grant Bristow speaking at the Canadian Jewish Congress. ------- Grant Bristow at CJCONT CJCONT should be commeneded for its initiative in having former CSIS mole Grant Bristow present to the CJCONT Executive. Bristow?s role in the deconstruction of the Heritage front has always been clouded with mystery. However, one thing remains clear...today for all intent and purposes there is no more heritage front. Did Bristow do his job? It seems so. It alaso appears that the CJC played an integral role in the demise of neo- Nazi groups of the time as well according to Bristows report to the Executive. Kol Hakavod. Noa Polnachenska [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Wed Aug 6 02:48:54 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Wed Aug 6 05:13:14 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/6/2003 - "Six months after incarceration for a bureaucratic snafu not of his doing, Ernst Zundel is still not allowed items for very basic comfort" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 6, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Here is a follow-up letter from Paul Fromm, highlighting once more the difficult situation in which Ernst finds himself where he is systematically prevented from assisting in his own legal defense: [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 August 5, 2003 Mr. Fred Williams, Assistant Regional Director, Adult Institutions, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Etobicoke, ON. BY FAX: 416-314-0527 Dear Mr. Williams: Further to our telephone conversation today, I am writing to convey serious concerns about the incarceration of Ernst Zundel at the Metro West Detention Centre. I write as Mr. Zundel's legal representative. As you know, Mr. Zundel has been convicted of no crime and is being held in detention under a disputed immigration matter. He is not a criminal, but a detainee. Also, he is 64 years of age and in questionable health. While he has had extensive experience before Canadian courts, he has never been convicted under the Criminal Code. He had never been charged, much less, convicted of an act of violence. He has a long history of compliance with the legal system, including 11 bail orders. He is by religious belief a pacifist. He is also a health devotee and abhors drugs and smoking. I mention all this, as his profile is likely very different from that of your average inmate. His age and history would seem to dictate some consideration. Mr. Zundel is faced with a number of very complex legal cases: 1. an appeal against an Immigration and Refugee Board decision that he is no longer a landed immigrant; 2. a bail request pursuant to a detention order, following a CSIS certificate, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (next dates for this are September 23 and 24); 3. challenge of the reasonableness of the CSIS certificate declaring him a threat to national security; 4. a habeas corpus motion in Provincial Court challenging his continued detention (to be heard October 10); 5. a motion seeking leave to seek judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision of January, 2002; and 6. a motion before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati seeking redress for his illegal deportation from the U.S., February 19, 2003. Just the documentation for challenging the CSIS certificate amounts to five thick volumes of documents, as well as a 50-page report. There may well be transcripts to come. It is a fundamental right of natural justice that a prisoner be able to assist in his defence. To do that, Mr. Zundel needs a pen, coloured highlighter, post-it notes (for markiing pages) and paper clips. When he learned that all Mr. Zundel has been allowed are pencil stubs like those you might use to mark your score in a bowling alley, Federal Judge Pierre Blais commented last Wednesday: "Even in mediaeval times, prisoners were allowed to use pen and paper. I also have respect for Mr. Zundel. He is not a criminal. He is entitled to a little bit of flexibility." Mr. Zundel is also not allowed a chair or a pillow. Surely, this treatment has nothing to do with security and seems more like disciplinary punishment. Yet, Mr. Zundel has zealously sought to comply with directions he's received in the Metro West Detention Centre. Therefore, I request the following: * a pillow and chair for basic human comfort; * a pen, paperclips, post-it notes, and coloured highlighter * access to hardcover books. Several of the books Mr. Zundel needs for his case are hardcovers. Yet, prison security staff say they are not allowed. I look forward to your reply and would be happy to meet with you at your convenience. Sincerely yours, Paul Fromm [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Thu Aug 7 04:26:44 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Thu Aug 7 06:47:01 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/7/2003 - "Take note of Sunday's Zundel demonstration" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 7, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Last night I had a long call from Paul Fromm, Ernst's legal representative on location. Paul wanted me to know that Ernst wants me to be sure he is not being physically mistreated. Do I feel reassured? Maybe. Maybe a little. Apparently the picture that upset me so - that showed Ernst with a large, red bruise on his face and ear and blood and blisters on his lips - was taken not where he is now but back in February, through a window, as he was being hauled in chains from one prison to another. I was told that sometimes reporters enhance such photographs. Also, Ernst has told me many times that the supervisors in his current prison, and in most of the others where he was kept before, do try to make his life a little more human, a little more bearable - but they are working under the constraints of a repressive, brutal prison atmosphere where violent criminals cannot be trusted with a chair because in their rage they might hurl it at a guard who only does his duty. Such prisoners cannot be given a pillow because they might stuff it into a toilet and create a stinking mess some lowly guard, who has no choice either, then has to clean up. They cannot be given a pen because it might become a stabbing weapon or even a suicide tool. They cannot be given a toothbrush because you-fill-in-the-blanks if you care. So it's kept on the floor in the hall. All that may well be true. I am sure it is true. That still leaves open the question: What is Ernst Zundel doing in that environment? Is there no recourse to force a decision on bail? Why is Ernst not allowed to wave a greeting at an old friend who has supported his struggle for forty years out of his own financially marginal existence? What has Ernst done to have to be subjected to strip searches, after a hearing he was forced to attend to be insulted non-stop by his hissing enemies, where he is surrounded by law enforcement personnel who won't even permit him to talk to a lawyer who had traveled thousands of miles to give testimony of Ernst's lawful behavior in the U.S., of Ernst's obeying all the bureaucratic rules, of doing absolutely everything according to the book? Did you read that in the National Post? Of course not! There's nothing that will justify that kind of degrading treatment! It is unworthy of a country that still claims to be civilized! Last night I also found out that there is a hotel in Toronto that's being used for detainees of questionable immigration status. Is life more tolerable there? Were Ernst to be transferred to that place, might he be allowed to sleep in a bed for a chance, instead of on a concrete slab only covered with a thin mattress? Might the food be better at breakfast than what he is currently fed through a slot in the door that consists of two pieces of dry toast - no butter, no jam - and a small plastic pouch of milk for an equally small portion of cereal and a small styrofoam cup of over-sweetened "coffee" a rat wouldn't touch? I have no reason to think the supervisors of such a prison actually approve of the way Ernst has to cope. Ernst has said many kind things about them, to me and to others. He says that these men do their duty, according to their job descriptions. They may have no options. They genuinely may not know what to do with a non-criminal dissident and may even endanger their jobs of they allow exceptions to inhuman treatment of a non-violent political prisoner. But can they not go somewhere to talk to someone in authority and say: "This man does not belong here! This place is killing him!"? Is there a reason why they cannot testify on Ernst's behalf that a prison filled to the seams with violent criminals should not be used as a political vendetta dumping ground for a lone activist who has never done anything criminal in 40 years of living in a country? Would an Open Letter of Protest by prison authorities to a national paper - let's say, the National Post - even get published? Would anybody like to bet? I am a big believer in spreading precise thoughts in quotes that have come down to us from previous generations. Here's one such David Thoreau quote that fits the occasion: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches to one who is striking at its roots." The word is now out, and no one is fooled. Ernst struck at the roots that is supporting evil. He dismantled the Holocaust Hoax via forensic evidence. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, all over the world now know that. So do the Wiesenthalers and their ilk. I wouldn't want to walk around in Wiesenthaler shoes. There will be another "Free Zundel" demonstration this Sunday. If you can be there, be there. If not, send a message that can be read aloud - for the cause, for the record and for our archives. Here are specifics of this demo: [START] Dear Free Speech Supporter: The Canadian Association for Free Expression is holding a demonstration outside the Metro West Detention Centre (111 Disco Drive) in Etobicoke on Sunday, August 10, at 1:00 p.m. The purpose of the demonstration is to demand humane treatment for political prisoner Ernst Zundel. He's kept in solitary confinement without a pillow, a chair, pen, post-it notes, hardcover books or highlighters. His personal toiletries are kept in a public hall outside his cell. Federal Judge Pierre Blais said last week: "Even in mediaeval times, prisoners were allowed to use pen and paper. I also have respect for Mr. Zundel. He is not a criminal. He is entitled to a little bit of flexibility." The strip searches, the denial of regular phone calls, sometimes the denial of the use of a razor, all of these humiliations are efforts to break Ernst Zundel and to punish him for his ideas. If we believe in freedom, we must protest! Please read my report on the sickening treatment Ernst must endure. He has a lump in his chest and has been denied his herbal medications. His first medical examination last week was a x-ray of his lungs. The test was utterly useless for examining the lump that has grown beneath his sternum. I'm asking for an hour of your time, whether you're 19 or 79. Ernst has given 6 months! We each enjoy freedom and much physical comfort. Ernst sickens inside a jail without a pillow, without proper medication. Let's protest and stand with him. Let's let Ernst and the world know by our presence that he is NOT forgotten. A number of free speech groups from across the province will be joining us. The demo will be at 2:00 p.m., (but let's say 1:30) Sunday, August 10, 2003, at the Metro West Detention Centre (111 Disco Road). Call the prison for the best directions: 416-675-1806 Bring the old Red Ensign flag, if you have one. If you're an American, bring the U.S. flag or the battle flag of the Confederacy. Our slogans will be "Ernst Zundel, Political Prisoner"; "Free Zundel"; "No Secret Trials". You can make up posters with these slogans. (...) E-mail me or phone 905-8997-7221, if you need further information. If you live out of town or cannot attend, why not send a short message of support. It will be read at the protest. Our June 1 protest brought in more than 50 letters of support, including ones for six foreign countries and 10 U.S. states. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Aug 8 11:17:34 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Fri Aug 8 15:22:30 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/8/2003 - "Another Letter to the Zundelsite" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 7, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I'll make it short and sweet today by giving you a sample of what appears to be ever more mainstream mood and mainstream thinking as expressed by this letter from one of my cyber friends: [START] At first, I thought that it might be my own wishful thinking -- but, without my giving them any hints about what their antennae might be telling them about the point we have reached in our struggle -- without exception I hear my own intuition confirmed: our enemies have "bet the farm" on one last throw of the dice. More and more honest, thinking individuals have begun to connect the dots, and now realize how events are being orchestrated and by whom. This awakening is an exponential process -- the more people who have attained an understanding of the Big Picture, the faster this understading will spread -- until eventually a "critical mass" is reached. When _that_ occurs, things can change with a rapidity and depth few would believe now. This is why our enemy's rhetoric has started to be edged with a note of hysteria, and why they are running here and there, trying to use an arrest here, a threat there and propaganda everywhere, to put out the speading flame of awareness of the truth. No matter what happens now, Ernst has secured a place of great honor and heroism in the history of our people. He will be one of the few human beings whose names do not die with them, but live as long as our kind exist. He is in our thoughts every day and what has been done and is being done to him literally _inspires_ us -- breathes the life of an insuperable determination to defeat the "traditonal enemies of the truth." My prayers are with of you, and like so many others, I am committed to the struggle until we prevail. -- [END] P.S. Don't forget to send Paul Fromm a greeting for Ernst which can be read at Sunday's demonstration, especially if you live in a foreign country. From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Aug 8 13:05:00 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Fri Aug 8 15:22:38 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/9/2003 - "My kind of man!" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny August 9, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite" Now here's ONE good, old-fashioned man - the kind that has almost disappeared in our wishy-washy, goody-goody world. Meet Mel Gibson's Dad, as seen through the eyes of yet another snide reporter: [START] Holy Father Mel Gibson's Dad is one Mad Max Houston Press July 24, 2003 http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2003-07-24/news.html/1/index.html BY WENDY GROSSMAN The pope isn't Catholic. John Paul II, the man most people believe to be pope, is really an imposter. He's deliberately plotting to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Catholics have been lied to, and they have been robbed. These are the messages Hutton Gibson preaches in his crusade to save the souls of his fellow Catholics. >From his home in northwest Houston, he mails out his eight-page newsletter titled "The War Is Now!" He has 600 subscribers worldwide. He's also authored the self-published books Is the Pope Catholic? and The Enemy Is Here, which features a cover with a map of Italy and an arrow pointing to Rome. He's gained international notice in some segments of the theological community from his years spent denouncing the pope as an imposter. "Whenever you say 'plot,' people automatically think 'nutcase,' " Gibson explains. "But there's no way this could happen by accident. There's no way this was not rigged." However, Hutton Gibson gets recognition far beyond his scholarly arguments about Catholic conspiracy theories. He also happens to be Mel's old man -- he's the father of one of the most established superstars in Hollywood, and he lives right here in the Houston area. The elder Gibson doesn't believe the holocaust happened and thinks the idea of evolution is ridiculous. He likes detective novels. The 84-year-old closes his blue eyes when he talks, often slipping into Latin. Instead of saying hello or using any other greeting when he answers the phone, he just says the last four digits of the number in a brisk military tone. The missal Gibson uses is in Latin. The prayer book's battered spine is covered in masking tape; his 11 children have torn out hunks of its pages. While he avidly tells of his crusade against the Catholic leadership, Gibson refuses to talk about his family or his famous son. Mel reportedly was outraged when The New York Times Magazine recently interviewed his father; the New York Post reported that Mel Gibson declared the Times story a "hit piece" on him and that the newspaper had harassed his father. The Times story quoted the elder Gibson calling the pope a "Koran kisser" and implied that he sounds a bit like the obsessive-compulsive, newsletter-writing, Catcher in the Rye-collecting character Mel played in Conspiracy Theory. The elder Gibson's unique life would seem suited for big-screen treatment itself. His mother, an opera singer, died in New York City before he was two. She had slipped in the shower and injured her neck. "It was a rather large neck," Gibson says. Gibson's father manufactured brass plumbing supplies until he went out of business in 1928. He died almost ten years later. Gibson was third-best academically in his high school class, graduating when he was only 15. "Nobody's ever going to get me into a classroom again," he says. Gibson studied for the priesthood at a mission 20 minutes outside Chicago. He intended to become a missionary, but he balked at the idea of being sent to New Guinea or the Philippines. "I just lost it," he says. "I did not want to go." He went after lots of other work. Gibson delivered telegrams for Western Union, planted trees for the Civilian Conservation Corps and built houses for the forestry department. During World War II, he was a first lieutenant in the Army Infantry and Signal Corps based in New Caledonia and Guadalcanal. Gibson married after his military discharge. The couple planned to have 12 kids and a Saint Bernard. "We never made it," he says. They had only 11 kids. "We did get the dog." But the dog was run over two weeks later. He told his kids that he wanted 100 grandchildren. Thus far, he's the grandfather of 48 and has 15 great-grandchildren. He doesn't buy any of them Christmas presents. He worked on the railroad as a brakeman for 24 years, until he slipped off a steel platform covered in oil and snow. He was forced to retire because of the injuries. The sixth of the Gibson children, Mel, described his dad in a Playboy interview as "just a regular guy who worked long hours, supported a big family and kept us all in shoes and food?He's a bookish guy. Uses words I've never heard of." In the interview, the younger Gibson told of a strong disciplinarian. His dad once got so angry at two of Mel's siblings, he knocked their heads together. "He told them they were not allowed to talk to each other for six months, and if he ever saw them even looking at each other he would beat the shit out of them. And they didn't communicate at all for a real long time. When they finally did, they were the best of friends. It worked." In 1968, Hutton Gibson took his disability money and the cash he had won on Jeopardy! and moved to his mother's native Australia. He didn't want his eldest son drafted in the United States. "They had a draft in Australia, too, but they were a little more humane," Gibson says. "He couldn't see from here to the wall, but they would have taken him anyway. So I figured, why should he go? I saw what happened to my war -- they just gave it away." But Gibson's new war -- a religious one -- began in Australia. Gibson's kids came home from Catholic school with a catechism titled "Shalom." "Shalom," Gibson says, clearly horrified. Shalom is the Hebrew form of aloha, meaning hello, good-bye and peace. "Shalom," Gibson repeats again, as if it were a four-letter word. He declared the catechism heresy. It's what spurred him to look at the documents from the Vatican II Council and examine the changes in the church. Vatican II was a series of meetings between 1962 and 1965 to update the church, although Gibson said it went against God's will. "Nowhere did He say we would accommodate to the times." One of the main changes was that mass would be said in the language of the congregants, rather than in Latin. "The Vatican Council called for a full, active and conscious participation in the liturgy," says Monsignor Frank Rossi, chancellor of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston. Priests no longer turned their backs on the congregation for mass, but instead faced them. Parishioners got a more active role in the church. "The first changes that came in were very subtle," says Jack Davignon, a traditionalist Catholic and coordinator for Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel in Spring. "It was like putting a lobster in water, then bringing the temperature up slowly. At first, you didn't notice the water was getting hotter." Gibson believes the church has changed so much that the Holy Ghost doesn't recognize it. He argues that the church had been fine for thousands of years and it didn't need to change to pander to a few people who didn't want to learn Latin. He joined the Latin Mass Society, a small group of older people who supported the Latin mass. He was appointed secretary and authored the newsletter. The group kicked him out because he was too outspoken, particularly against the pope. "It's not just my salvation -- but a lot of other people's [salvation] depends on it," he says. "It does me no great deal if everyone else goes to hell. I'm not just out for myself." While his religious campaign was escalating, his life in Australia was becoming more difficult. Gibson says the country was beautiful, but jobs were becoming harder to find. His son-in-law found work outside Houston. And a few years ago, Gibson decided to move to Texas with his daughter's family. What sealed the decision was his discovery of a church in the southwest part of Houston that offered a traditional mass that Gibson recognizes. Those churches, he says, are impossible to find in Australia. After the death of his first wife about ten years ago, Gibson fell in love with a woman at the church and they were married in 2001. He says he should have done it sooner. They live in a new home with lead-crystal candlesticks and fake grapes on the dining room table. Sitting in the dining room with his eyes closed, Gibson says the Vatican's new dogma is as "self-contradictory as a square circle." He says the Vatican II Council was "an act of foolishness, stupidity, defiance and deliberate rejection of Christ." Mel Gibson, in his Playboy interview, defended his father's books as canonically and theologically sound. "Everything he was taught to believe was taken from him in the sixties with this renewal Vatican Council," the son said. "The whole institution became unrecognizable to him, so he writes about it." While he has supporters who say his arguments are based on fact, some of them have trouble with his notion that the pope isn't really Catholic. The more recent popes may not have acted like Catholics, Davignon says, "but we can't say that there is no pope." Father James Gordon, a traditionalist priest who runs Mater Dei Chapel out of his house near Gulfgate Mall, says of John Paul II, "Good, bad or otherwise, his tushie warms the chair of Saint Peter." Rossi argues that the new mass is actually more traditional than the traditional mass. The old mass has more scripture readings, longer prayers, more incense and more bells. He laughs at the idea that the Holy Spirit has left the church. "Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the church," he says. "So the Spirit will not leave the church." He trusts Jesus to keep his word. Inside the Vatican recently reported that Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze has drafted a major disciplinary document that will end "do it yourself" masses and will encourage wider use of the traditional mass. Some traditionalist priests in the area think that's a step in the right direction, although the monsignor at the Houston diocese says he doubts it will lead to a resurgence of old Latin masses. And so does Gibson. But Gibson doesn't trust anything that comes out of the Vatican. Gibson says that the destruction of the church is a sign of the Apocalypse. And as soon as the church is destroyed, the world will end. "I figure that as long as there's one [true] Catholic in the world, it hasn't finished," he says. "So I'm trying to keep it going." [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Aug 11 16:36:07 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Aug 11 18:57:30 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/10/2003 - "Nuremberg Trials archives to be made available on-line" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 10, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Just so you know what Talmudic vengeance looks like, imagine these volumes of transcripts and documents pertaining to the Nuremberg Trials: [START] Online future for Nuremberg archive By Jane Standley BBC correspondent in New York One million pages of documents from the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals will be made available on the internet if Boston's HarvardUniversity can find the necessary money. Harvard's Law School has already posted 7,000 pages on one of its own web sites but it says it needs as much as $7m to make the entire Nuremberg archive available. The massive project to put the one million pages of transcripts from the Nuremberg trials onto the internet is likely to take 10 years to complete. The pages have been accessible to the public for the past 50 years though only a few people - academics and hunters of war criminals - have sifted through the mountains of material. But the papers are now becoming very fragile and the idea to put them onto the internet came about as part of an effort to preserve them. Seven thousand pages - a volume which covers only a third of the first 13 trials held between 1946 and 1949 - were posted on a Harvard website but then the money to continue ran out. The university is now looking for financial grants and gifts to continue. No startling new information about the Holocaust is expected to come to light if the massive internet archive is completed but scholars have welcomed the move. They say it will make the Holocaust more immediate to readers and will also make the study of areas such as slave labour, the torture of prisoners-of-war and medical experimentation on humans more accessible. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3139569.stm Published: 2003/08/10 13:50:04 GMT ? BBC MMIII [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Aug 11 16:38:01 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Aug 11 18:57:38 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/11/2003 - "Report of Zundel Demo" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 11, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I just finished speaking to Paul Fromm. It seems that the demonstration below has already borne some fruit - or perhaps I should say, some promises. After six months in maximum detention, Ernst has been promised a pillow and a chair, perhaps even some office items so that he can mark up the documents he needs for his defense. Never say never! Below is an account of the demonstration: [START} Canadian Association for Free Expression Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 Ph: 905-897-7221; FAX: 905-277-3914 For Immediate Release August 10, 2003 Forty-five free speech supporters from around Southern Ontario protested the humiliating prison conditions faced by German-born revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel in the Metro West Detention Centre in Rexdale, Ontario. Organized by the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), today's protest drew activists from London, Oshawa, Collingwood and Toronto. The rally was endorsed by the Northern Alliance, the Canadian Heritage Alliance and the Heritage Front. The protest also brought out a number of television, radio and newspaper reporters. The hot grey late summer sky snapped with a sea of Red Ensigns. "Why do you fly the old flag of Canada?" a French CBC reporters asked protest organizer Paul Fromm. "It represents the real Canada," Fromm said, "the Canada founded by our European ancestors. It was one that guaranteed due process and enshrined English Common Law that our ancestors had fought to win for over 1,000 years." In a short speech to the rally, Fromm, a former Toronto school trustee, denounced the secret hearings that have occurred before each of Ernst Zundel's bail reviews and court hearings. "These secret hearings are outrageous," Fromm said. "They deny Mr. Zundel his fundamental right to face his accusers, to know the charges and accusations against him and to be able to offer a full response and defence. How can he defend himself against accusations he hasn't heard?" Fromm demanded. Many protesters carried signs denouncing the inhumane prison conditions which they believe are inflicted on Mr. Zundel to break his spirit and get him to agree to return to Germany and a mimimum 5 years in prison. Mr. Zundel stands accused in Germany of violating a law that forbids insulting the memory of the dead -- a totalitarian legal nicety which means questioning the Hollywood version of World War II. The protesters told reporters that Ernst Zundel is kept in solitary confinement without a pillow, a chair, without pens, paperclips, post-it notes or highlighters, all of which are needed to mark up and organize the several feet thick mound of legal documents and transcripts Mr. Zundel must handle for his half dozen or more legal cases. Fromm referred to comments in Federal Court, July 30, by Mr. Justice Pierre Blais when informed of the prison conditions: "Even in mediaeval times, prisoners were allowed to use pen and paper. I also have respect for Mr. Zundel. He is not a criminal. He is entitled to a little bit of flexibility." Two prison guards who'd come out to the parking lot to monitor the protest, were furious when one of the demonstrators appeared to snap their picture. "This is typical of a totalitarian state. It stomps all over the rights of a man like Mr. Zundel, but its operatives certainly don't like their identity known," Jack Castor, one of the protesters said. The rally ended with a rousing chant of "Free Ernst Zundel!" _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Among the messages of support received from around Canada and abroad were the following sample. "Dear Ernst; as a victim of the same oppression you're facing, the thoughts and prayers from my family are never far from you! As was the case with my fathers persecution at the hands of tyranny and the suppressers of truth, you will eventually be recognized and acknowledged as the victim of a terrible injustice. Until that time, keep the faith and may the good Lord be with you." Heinz Bartesch San Rafael, CA "Best Wishes to Ernst Hi Paul, convey my best wishes to Ernst. It is unbelievable how our democratic government acts in this case. They call themselves LIBERALS, I wonder why ? Regards" Harry Schneider, Etobicoke, Ontario " The Lynch Pin of Their Vulnerability. It cannot be stressed enough how vital/essential is the reminder that Ernst Zundel is a political prisoner -- whose very opinions from his pursuit of truth over the decades have threatened the very foundations of those who coined and then defined the phrase, "political correctness". They realize as do we that he represents the downfall of their shrines by providing the tools of truth and discovery and then exposing their deceptions. He is the lynch pin to their vulnerability - AND THEY KNOW IT! Hang tough, Ernst! We will strive to make your imprisonment as pleasant as possible. Oh, and of course, THANK YOU for your struggle!!!!!" Diane King Cushing, Texas "From Adelaide Institute, Dr Fredrick T?ben, Associates and Supporters, Australia. ------------------------- Dear Ernst You are alone in your cell but you are not alone. We cannot enter your cell but you are with us. Nothing great is gained without sacrifice You are a man of Destiny Your message is clear Your enemy fears you We are with you." ------------------------------- Dr Fredrick T?ben Adelaide Institute, Australia "No matter our personal opinions especially in the field of history, Ernst Z?ndel should be an inspiration for everyone of us because of his exceptional courage. I, for one, know something about being prosecuted/persecuted for my revisionist findings on the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews. But what E. Z?ndel has been suffering and still suffers for the same findings is much worse than what I happened to endure. France has a clear and shameful way of treating the Revisionists. Germany, Austria and Switzerland have a brutal and shameful way. But Canada has a way which is even more shameful than anyone else because it is hypocritical, vicious and cruel. Canadian citizens should realize they have a hero at home, fighting for their own rights and liberty : Ernst Z?ndel." Dr. Robert Faurisson, France August 9, 2003 PS: Nowadays everyone should realize that E. Z?ndel was right and that the story (not history) of Saddam Hussein's alleged WMDs is a mere repetition of the story (not history) of Adolf Hitler's WMDs ("execution gas chambers" and "execution gas vans"). The lie is the same and the liars are the same." "Dear Ernst: Just a line from an old veteran to a very couragous front-line soldier for the Truth: hang in there, Old Warrior. The tide is beginning to turn and time is now on your side. You are making history as surely as the men at Runneymede! Hang tough." Ron Gostick, Director, Canadian Intelligence Publications. "Greetings to Ernst from Britain I support and uphold his right to express and hold opinions that may be unpopular with the `system'. The fact that a peaceful man of his years can be abducted and incarcerated in such a blatant way is proof (if it's needed) that we are living in oppressive times. The New World Order `template' is being applied globally, real freedom is neither tolerated nor encouraged. The masses under the sedation of consumerism, and media control fail to see the slight of hand and seem destined to become yet another `product line' themselves. As resistors it's our duty to become individuality financially successful in order that our voice is more powerful. regards" Tony Schubmehl, U.K. [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Tue Aug 12 16:02:21 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Tue Aug 12 18:20:56 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/12/2003 - "No smoke, no Holocaust?" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 12, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I am going to do something today that I usually don't do - simply send you a URL to one of David Irving's website and let you take a look at another Revisionist victory: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html Another lie down! Many more to go! Have a nice day! Ingrid From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Wed Aug 13 17:04:28 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Wed Aug 13 19:40:43 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/13/2003 - "WMD - How very sad!" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 13, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: When Revisionists claim that "gas chambers" were, in fact, "planted" so as to implicate a fallen regime and turn it into a cash cow, they get called all kinds of names - certainly not "whistleblowers". Read and compare - then and now: [START] US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower Daily Times Monitor According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration's assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to "plant" WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by "friendly fire", the Environmentalists Against War report. Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin Raw.com, "Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense." The information that is being leaked out is information "obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. "According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq," reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides "Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence". Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider," and is considered one of America's foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and "the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace". According to Al Martin Raw.com, "the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others". According to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms Rogers' report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when "the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called 'friendly fire'. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted." "They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds," reports Al Martin. "These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray," Martin continues. "There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of 'friendly fire', 'mistaken identity' and some of them-their whereabouts are simply unknown." [END] (Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9 ) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Thu Aug 14 02:56:53 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Thu Aug 14 05:18:52 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/14/2003 - "Heil Schwarzenegger?" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 14, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: When I read articles like the one below, I always think of what Joseph [Gins]Burg, a German Jew who testified on behalf of the defense in the Zundel trials of the 1980s, told Ernst: That there existed "bureaus" all over the world whose sole function was to take news articles and editorials that had nothing to do with the "Holocaust" per se, and equip them with a "Holocaust sortie" before they were unleashed on the wire. Lookee who's calling the kettle black: [START] The cynical manipulation of Hitler's legacy for political purposes By Zev Chafets I want to say something about the accusations that California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger is - how to put it? - too Austrian. But before I do, I need to make something clear about my attitude toward Austria: I don't like it. All my life I have endeavored to avoid Austrian products (not hard if you're not into beer and cookies). I've never visited the place and don't intend to. My aim isn't to singlehandedly destroy the Austrian tourist industry. It's just that hanging out with Adolf Hitler's countrymen isn't my idea of a relaxing vacation. I'd probably dislike Austria no matter what kind of country it became after World War II. But the modern version strikes me as an unnecessarily nasty place. Decades after Germany took responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis, Austria still falsely portrays itself as Hitler's victim instead of his enthusiastic supporter. The country seems to have a passion for louses. In the 1970s, Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky was a prominent supporter of Yasser Arafat and other Arab terrorists. More recently, the neofascist Freedom Party has been a member in good standing of Austria's coalition government. That party's leader is Jorg Haider, an admirer of Hitler and friend of Saddam Hussein's. Before Haider, there was Kurt Waldheim. The fact that the former UN secretary general was a Nazi war criminal didn't deter the Austrians from electing him president in 1986. Which brings me back to Arnold. Since announcing his candidacy on the Jay Leno show, he has become the object of a campaign to smear him as a Nazi sympathizer. The paint comes mostly from "Arnold: An Unauthorized Biography," written by Wendy Leigh and published in 1990. Waldheim is the brush. According to Leigh, Schwarzenegger is close to Waldheim - so close, in fact, that he invited the ex-Nazi to his Hyannis Port, Mass., wedding to Kennedy cousin Maria Shriver. Waldheim thoughtfully didn't show up, but he did send a gaudy gift. This reportedly prompted Arnold to declare his love (and Maria's) for Herr Waldheim. This friendship forms the basis of a politically motivated gambit to disqualify Arnold from political office. Slate's Timothy Noah summed up the campaign nicely: "If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California." Really? Schwarzenegger was born in 1947. He has lived most of his life in the United States. True, his father was a Nazi police official in the old country, but that isn't Arnold's fault. In fact, it was Arnold who outed the old man by asking the Los Angeles - based Simon Wiesenthal Center to investigate his father's past. Schwarzenegger himself is a strong supporter of Israel and a generous contributor to Jewish causes. For this he has been declared kosher by no less a hardliner than the head of the Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Marvin Heir. Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Arnold fan. I've never liked his movies or his cheesy public persona. I also don't care who becomes the next governor of California. To me, it's like the debate over gay bishops in the Episcopal Church - interesting, but not my problem. What I do care about is the cynical manipulation of Hitler's legacy for political purposes. Casting Schwarzenegger as a Nazi sympathizer - for the greater good of Gov. Gray Davis or any of the other candidates - is a crime against human memory. By trivializing evil, California's Holocaust impliers become, wittingly or not, allies and accomplices of the Holocaust deniers. (Source: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0803/chafets_2003_08_13.php3 ) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Aug 15 14:09:31 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Fri Aug 15 19:04:04 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/14/2003 - "World-Famous Philosopher Honderich Hit with 'Anti-Semite' Slur" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 15, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Behold the Holocaust from yet another angle: August 13, 2003 CounterPunch Diary World-Famous Philosopher Honderich Hit with "Anti-Semite" Slur in Germany; Habermas and Suhrkamp Cut and Run By ALEXANDER COCKBURN The distinguished British philosopher Ted Honderich, is threatening to sue the head of the Holocaust museum in Frankfort for calling him an anti-Semite. The director, Micha Brumlik , levelled the charge last week after Honderich's book "After The Terror" was published in Germany in July. Suhrkamp, the jelly-kneed publisher, has said it is taking the book off the market, though in practice this appears to mean Surhkamp won't order a reprinting when the first printing of 3,000 is sold out. Germany's most eminent philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, has said he was the one who recommended the book to Suhrkamp, can find nothing anti-Semitic in it, though, in a kindred display of pusillanimity, simultaneously says he regrets having been involved in anything that may have caused offense. Honderich is a resolute supporter of the Palestinian struggle for nationhood. But, as he emphasizes, he is in no way an anti-Semite, has a Jewish wife and step children and has always refused to lecture in Germany because of the Holocaust. The book was published in a German translation as Nach dem Terror: Ein Traktat, in July 2003, by Suhrkamp in Frankfurt on Main, as one of their 40th anniversary books. Micha Brumlik is director of a centre for the history and effects of the Holocaust in Frankfurt, and a professor of science-education, at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt on Main. On August 5, in the liberal paper Frankfurter Rundschau, Brumlik published an open letter to the publisher Suhrkamp denouncing the book and Honderich as anti-Semitic, and demanding that it be taken off the market. On August 6 the paper carried an embarrassed dispatch from Prof. Dr. Jurgen Habermas, Germany's best known philosopher. This man of the mind vouchsafed that himself had recommended After the Terror to Suhrkamp for publication. Having been surprised by his friend Brumlik's letter, he had now read the book again and found in it no evidence of anti-Semitism. But he was sorry to have been involved in something that caused hurt. Suhrkamp then announced in a press release it was taking the book off the market. Subsequently it became clear that what this comes to is that they are not reprinting a book that has sold out, or more or less sold out its run of 3,000 copies. It remains the case that they have 'banned' a book. In a letter to Honderich they remark in passing that they have a Jewish imprint within their house. On August 8, after it had already appeared on my website, the Frankfurter Rundschau published most of an open letter from Honderich to Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. Honderich denied as absurd the charge of anti-Semitism, saying that it was made only because he assrted the moral right of the Palestinians to their terrorism or resistance, as the Israeli state asserts its moral right to killing. He demanded the removal of Brumlik from his professorship. The affair has become theprime cultural-political controversy in Germany. eliciting at least 50 articles, some virulent. Honderich says, " I have come to realize fully, mainly from German journalists, German emotions about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, 60 years after the event, remain very strong indeed, [involving] guilt, resolution, and probably other things. "My strong line has been the one in my open letter: I am being attacked as anti-Semitic because I assert the moral right of the Palestinians to their terrorism, as the neo-Zionist state in Israel asserts a moral right overtly and covertly to kill Palestinians. (My claim of a moral right to violence is far from unique.) "That I am anti-Semitic is certainly a falsehood, probably a lie. The neo-Zionist use of the libel and slander of anti-Semitism is very well-known, at any rate outside of Germany, and recorded in the Englishliberal press. It is dirty politics and dirty morals. In Germany, it isoperating in a circumstance that does honour to the Germans: their guilt etc. 60 years after the Holocaust. The banning of this book is sad for Germany. Honderich emphasizes that the charge of anti-Semitism has strong personal overtones for him: "I have had a Jewish wife, now have a Jewish step son-in-law and, so to speak, Jewish grandchildren. I refused to lecture in Germany because of the Holocaust. Even if philosophically advanced, as you might say, I am a British Lefty, a member of the Labour Party still, My autobiography Philosopher: A Kind of Life, provides evidence on the Holocaust point and also strong evidence of a general kind as to my attitudes to Jews. "I am taking advice on the possibility of sueing Brumlik for libel. There is the personal consideration of course. ('Honderich monster' finds you some files on Google.) There is also the moral and political aspect of the case, including that of the Palestinians, to which I am committed." In the forthcoming The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Jeffrey St Clair and myself, there is a very interesting essay by Norman Finkelstein, recounting similar charges of anti-Semitism levelled at him when he visited Germqany. In it Finkelstein writes: In fact, the Holocaust has proven to be a valuable commodity for politically correct Germans. By "defending" Holocaust memory and Jewish elites against any and all criticism, they get to play-act at moral courage. What price do they actually pay, what sacrifice do they actually make, for this "defense"? Given Germany's prevailing cultural ambience and the overarching power of American Jewry, such courage in fact reaps rich rewards. Pillorying a Jewish dissident costs nothing--and provides a "legitimate" outlet for latent prejudice. It happens that I agree with Daniel Goldhagen's claim in Hitler's Willing Executioners that philo-Semites are typically anti-Semites in "sheep's clothing." The philo-Semite both assumes that Jews are somehow "different" and almost always secretly harbors a mixture of envy of and loathing for this alleged difference. Philo-Semitism thus presupposes, but also engenders a frustrated version of, its opposite. A public, preferably defenseless, scapegoat is then needed to let all this pent-up ugliness ooze out. To account for Germany's obsession with the Nazi holocaust, a German friend explained that Germans "like to carry a load." To which I would add: especially if it's light as a feather. No doubt some Germans of the post-war generation genuinely accepted the burden of guilt together with its paralyzing taboos on independent, critical thought. But today German "political correctness" is all a charade of pretending to accept the burden of being German while actually rejecting it. For, what is the point of these interminable public breast-beatings except to keep reminding the world: "We are not like them." (Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/ ) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sat Aug 16 05:54:58 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sat Aug 16 14:44:23 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/16/2003 - "U.S. Jew among 3 nabbed in plot to smuggle missile" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 16, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Last night, I received the following from a ZGram reader: "I found this in an Israeli paper, the Ha'aretz. Try to find any mention of a Jew being among those arrested for the missile smuggling sting in any US media. I couldn't. I am sure it was just inadvertently left out." _______________________________________________________________ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/329224.html Here is the article itself. Note the headline - couldn't happen in America, could it? [START] U.S. Jew among 3 nabbed in plot to smuggle missile By Reuters (Haaretz) NEWARK, New Jersey - An American Jew was among three suspects nabbed for allegedly attempting to smuggle a missile to terror groups operating inside the United States in order to down commercial aircraft. But the smuggling attempt was in fact a sting operation orchestrated over the past 18 months by U.S., Russian and British authorities. Terrorism-related charges were leveled on Wednesday against a British arms dealer who praised Osama bin Laden and thought he was smuggling into the United States missiles, federal prosecutors announced. Two other suspected accomplices to the plot, inlcuding Yehuda Abraham, who is Jewish, face conspiracy charges, the prosecutors said. "This morning, the terrorists who threatened America lost an ally in their quest to kill our citizens," U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie told a news conference on the plaza of the federal courthouse in Newark, New Jersey. Moments earlier, two of the three suspects appeared before a federal magistrate amid tight security at the courthouse, where authorities spelled out charges against them. Hemant Lakhani, identified as a well-known British arms dealer, was accused of providing material support to terrorists and of illegal weapons dealing, Christie said. A second man, Moinuddeen Ahmed Hameed, was charged with illegally transmitting money to help finance the plot, Christie said. A third, Abraham, was due to appear later on Wednesday in federal court in New York on similar charges. Lakhani was arrested on Tuesday in Newark after trying to sell a Russian-made shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile to FBI informants posing as extremists who wanted to shoot down a large commercial airliner, officials said. The missile was intended "specifically for the purpose of shooting an American airliner out of the sky," Christie said. Meanwhile in London, police said they searched two sites at the request of U.S. authorities in the sting operation. No arrests were made, and officials declined to say where they were carried out. Lakhani, wearing a rumpled striped shirt, bowed his head and said nothing during his court appearance. A lawyer representing Lakhani later declined to comment to reporters. The charge of providing support to terrorists carries a possible 15-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine, while the weapons charges could mean 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. Lakhani and Hameed were each given a court date for later this month to determine if they might be released on bail. According to a criminal complaint, the sting began in December 2001, when officials learned about Lakhani from an informant. They used the unidentified informant to contact Lakhani, a British citizen born in India, and investigators said they audiotaped and videotaped 150 conversations between the two men. Lakhani made a number of anti-U.S. remarks during those talks, it said. "He on many occasions referred to Americans as bastards (and) Osama bin laden as a hero who had done something right and set the Americans straight," Christie said. Bin Laden's al Qaeda group is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. "Mr. Lakhani knew full well what he was doing, why he was doing it, and ... he very clearly expressed his sentiments toward this country and its citizens," he said. The informant pretended to Lakhani that he represented a Somali group that wanted to purchase an anti-aircraft missile, the complaint said. The Somali group told Lakhani they would pay $85,000 for a sample missile and promised to purchase 50 more later. The complaint said Lakhani told the informant "ours is a much higher quality" surface-to-air missile that those were fired in November 2002 at an Israeli passenger plane taking off from Mombasa, Kenya, but did not hit the aircraft. The third suspect, Abraham, took a $30,000 partial payment on behalf of Lakhani, it said. Another payment of $500,000, which the U.S. Attorney said was 10 percent of the price, was in the works to purchase the additional missiles. Hameed, who is from Malaysia, was only brought into the scheme in the last couple days to handle the larger payment, but money never changed hands, it said. Russian authorities who worked in the sting provided an inert missile that was shipped to the United States. Lakhani was arrested when he tried to retrieve it at a Newark hotel, authorities said. [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Aug 17 16:32:35 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Aug 17 18:56:42 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/17/2003 - "UN blasts Israeli marriage law" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny August 17, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Some of you may not have seen this one yet - it is a nice one to keep for future reference. [START] UN blasts Israeli marriage law Supporters of the bill fear the loss of Israel's Jewish character. A United Nations panel has urged Israel to repeal a new law forcing Palestinians who marry Israelis to live separate lives. The Geneva-based Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination unanimously approved a resolution saying the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty. However the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, accused the panel of bias. On 31 July the Israeli parliament approved a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship or residency. [Israel] should reconsider its policy with a view to facilitating family unification on a non-discriminatory basis Arabs make up about 20% of Israel's population of 6 million. About 3 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many families were divided by the Middle East conflict, and over the years marriage between the two groups has been common. Until recently, the Israeli interior minister had the final say on whether Palestinians who married Israelis could receive citizenship and make a home in the country. Since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have obtained Israeli permits in this way and some Israelis see this as a security threat. The UN committee - which monitors the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - condemned new law. Israel views the Committee's initiative as being highly politicised The Israeli ambassador to the UN was advised that "The State party (Israel) should revoke this ban and reconsider its policy with a view to facilitating family unification on a non-discriminatory basis." However the Israeli Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Yaakov Levy, said the resolution showed "a biased approach which singles out Israel". He added that the law was still under review by Israel's Supreme Court, after facing challenges by opponents. "The domestic internal proceedings have not yet been exhausted," he said. [END] (SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3152651.stm ) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Aug 18 15:12:44 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Aug 18 17:34:32 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/18/2003 - "Right Idea, Wrong Holocaust Museum" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 18, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: And they say we aren't making progress? An editorial, pregnant with meaning: [START] Right Idea, Wrong Holocaust Museum By Walter Reich August 18, 2003 Los Angeles Times U.S. officials want Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to visit a Holocaust museum. They have the right idea but the wrong museum. The museum they have in mind is in Washington. The one to which he should go is in Jerusalem. Abbas wrote a book that distorted, denied or minimized core facts of Holocaust history. Were he to visit a Holocaust museum, he would have the opportunity to correct his assault on history and at least quell some of the Holocaust denial that's rampant in the Arab world. But he would be able to accomplish that with seriousness and credibility not in Washington - where any such act would be seen as having been engineered by the American government to enhance Abbas' image - but at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, where it would truly be a courageous and galvanizing act of humanity and education. The central argument of Abbas' 1984 book, "The Other Face: the Secret Connection Between the Nazis and the Zionist Movement," was that the Zionist movement was a partner in crime with the Nazis against the Jewish people. After the war, Abbas wrote, the Zionist movement inflated the number of Jews killed by the Germans to 6 million in order to arouse sympathy. The actual number, he suggested, might have been fewer than 1 million. And regarding the gas chambers - which, Abbas wrote, "were supposedly designed for murdering Jews" - he refers his readers to "a scientific study" by the French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Faurisson, Abbas points out, believes they were used "only for incinerating bodies, out of concern for the spread of disease and infection in the region." Last April, after Abbas was designated as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Tom Lantos, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, knowing of Abbas' writings on the Holocaust, offered to guide him through the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. According to the congressman, Abbas accepted the offer. But in a letter to Lantos written just before his visit to Washington in July, the Palestinian prime minister said that his schedule would be too tight for a museum visit, adding that he looked forward to seeing it on his next trip to Washington. Lantos should breathe a sigh of relief that Abbas didn't go through with the museum visit in Washington, which would have been hijacked in the service of political agendas. He should try, instead, to convince Abbas to drive a few miles from his home to Jerusalem's Yad Vashem. The unsuitability of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for this kind of visit was made evident in 1998, while I was its director, when the State Department initiated an invitation for a visit by Yasser Arafat - a visit I opposed. At the time, the State Department was encountering bumps in the path of the Oslo peace effort. The hope was that prominent press coverage of Arafat surveying exhibits on the Holocaust would induce American Jews - many of whom opposed the administration's policy of pressuring Israel for concessions because they distrusted Arafat - to see the Palestinian leader as a man who could feel their pain and therefore could be entrusted to protect the security of the Jewish state. On the day of the planned visit, Arafat himself demonstrated its political essence. He called it off as soon as he learned there would be no press coverage. The Monica Lewinsky story had just broken, and the Washington press corps had decamped to the White House to cover it. And now the administration is again focused on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking and wants to convince skeptical Jews, in both the United States and Israel, that Abbas is not Arafat. Were Abbas to visit the Holocaust museum in Washington, many Jews would see the visit as a diplomatic gimmick set up by the administration to manipulate their opinions and as an exploitation of the memory of their dead for political purposes. And Arabs would see it as a humiliating concession extorted from a weak Palestinian leader by a powerful America. The visit's potential to advance Holocaust education would be smothered by the reality and appearance of politics. On the other hand, a visit by Abbas to Israel's own Holocaust museum would separate the gesture from diplomatic maneuverings by Washington. In the Arab world it would raise doubts about Holocaust denial; in Israel it would be seen as a genuine acknowledgment of the history and fears of Israelis. Like Anwar Sadat's breakthrough trip to Jerusalem, such a visit would be a great act of statesmanship, courage and imagination. It would be a journey to the heart of the darkness that is central to Israel's nightmares. It would establish Abbas as a leader independent of Palestinian politics and taboos and independent of Arafat, and it would reveal the bravery of a man willing to risk attack at home and to do what few of us are ever willing to do: acknowledge that he was wrong. Most important, it could galvanize and reset the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. ===== [END] Walter Reich, a professor of international affairs, ethics and human behavior at George Washington University, was director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum from 1995 to 1998. From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Tue Aug 19 15:21:09 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Tue Aug 19 19:44:37 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/19/2003 - "Richard Wagner pardoned by the German Government" Message-ID: ZGRAM - Where Truth is Destiny August 19, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Little by little, things seem to be falling into place. You have to read between the lines - but then, what else are we doing these days? The worthwhile stuff is what shines through, not what is being said. A few days ago I queried famed German attorney Horst Mahler - was he being charged for "defaming the dead" for making that daring speech declaring the Big H kaput at the Wartburg? Nope, was his happy reply. Then I received a call from a young man in Dresden who told me in a forceful voice, music to my ears, that "there is hope for Germany", that "things are happening". Next I read of the good people of Dachau who are sick to death of Holocaustomania associated with their town who want to get rid of their eyesore - dismantle it once and for all. Just a few hours ago I had another call from Oregon by a man, a composer, who is looking for - horror! - genuine yet tender patriotic poetry that he can set to music. And now this? Another silly taboo gets the boot from none other than Chancellor Schroeder? Let's hope he'll be spared to be sent to the doghouse - again! [START] Telegraph | News | Schr?der brings Wagner in from Nazi cold Tuesday 19 August 2003 Telegraph Network Schr?der brings Wagner in from Nazi cold By Kate Connolly in Berlin (Filed: 19/08/2003) Chancellor Gerhard Schr?der yesterday ended a decades-old taboo by becoming the first post-war German leader to visit the Richard Wagner festival at Bayreuth, once so favoured by Adolf Hitler. Mr Schr?der, who is keen to prove himself a patron of highbrow culture, visited the festival in southern Germany with the Japanese prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi. They watched a performance of Wagner's T?nnhauser, directed by the Frenchman Philippe Arlaud. Organisers of the festival, founded by the composer and his wife, Cosima, in 1876, saw yesterday's visit as a sign that Germany's bastion of conservative culture is finally losing its association with the Nazi era. Hitler, who visited Bayreuth for the first time in 1923 and was a frequent visitor throughout the 1930s, hijacked the festival for his own political purposes, favouring the anti-Semitic Wagner's celebration of Teutonic greatness through ancient epic story-telling. Since the end of the war, festival organisers and lovers of Wagner have been trying to claim back the composer, but political leaders have remained nervous of being seen at the event. The Japanese leader acted as a catalyst in breaking the taboo after expressing his love of Wagner to Mr Schr?der last year at the G8 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, during the football World Cup. The German chancellor asked Mr Koizumi for a lift in his plane from the summit to Tokyo so that he could see Germany play in the final. In return Mr Schr?der agreed to invite the Japanese prime minister to Bayreuth. Mr Schr?der is turning meetings with leaders at the opera into something of a habit. Later this week he and the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, will attend a performance of Bizet's Carmen in Verona. It will be their first meeting since Mr Berlusconi sparked a diplomatic row when he insulted a German MEP. From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Wed Aug 20 04:33:52 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Wed Aug 20 08:29:18 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/20/2003 - "Defusing The Fury Over Gibson's 'Passion'" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 20, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: The controversy over the Gibson film continues - and, of course, the movie gets ever more publicity. I like this assessment written after a preview during which our favorite enemy, the ADL, was invited to contribute its own two cents worth of "opinion" - of course, a foregone conclusion: [START} Defusing The Fury Over Gibson's 'Passion' By Leo Linbeck III 8-19-03 A lot of people are talking about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion, but few have seen it. I am fortunate to be one of those who has viewed it. I was the organizer and host of the Houston screening, and with the permission of Icon Productions, Gibson's production company, I have some thoughts to share. At our screening, we had approximately 100 guests. It was, by design, a very diverse group, as befits the Houston tradition of openness, dialogue and mutual respect. Our audience included significant representation from the Jewish community, including officials of the Anti-Defamation League. In fact, the Houston screening was the first time ADL officials attended a screening. As Gibson said at the screening, the movie is a work in progress. Nevertheless, the basic story line is in place. (If you don't want me to ruin the surprise, skip the next sentence.) Jesus was arrested, tortured, condemned to die, crucified, died and rose from the dead. Big shocker, eh? It's kind of like the movie Titanic a few years ago -- everyone knows what will happen before the movie begins. But The Passion, even in its raw state, is a stunningly violent and visually beautiful film. At the end of the film, most people were in a state of numbed shock. It is definitely the most powerful film I have ever seen. The screening was a study in confirmation bias. What is confirmation bias? It is a common psychological phenomenon that causes us to pay attention to data that confirm our preconceived notions, and ignore data that contradict those notions. In other words, we see what we want to see. In the movie Twelve Angry Men, 11 of the 12 jurors began deliberations convinced that the defendant was guilty. Lee J. Cobb's character was the most convinced. He was sure even before the trial began, and he recalled evidence selectively to reinforce this belief: confirmation bias. The best way to control confirmation bias is to talk with people who disagree with you. Like Henry Fonda's character in Twelve Angry Men. That's why we included a diverse group at the Houston screening. Still, those who came with concerns about the film found evidence that confirmed their concerns. Those who came enthusiastic about the film found evidence that confirmed their enthusiasm. In short, the confirmation bias at work. Unfortunately, the resulting emotions undermined the dialogue that followed. But I'm hopeful that as those emotions fade, the dialogue will resume, and we will eventually get to the truth. Just like in Twelve Angry Men. Another psychological phenomenon occurred at the screening, one I call the Annie Hall effect. There's a split-screen scene in Annie Hall where Alvy (Woody Allen) and Annie (Diane Keaton) are each meeting with their analyst. Both analysts ask their patients the same thing: How often do you have sex? Alvy responds: Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week. Annie responds: Constantly. I'd say three times a week. So it was with the biggest hot-button issue in The Passion: the complicity of Jews in Jesus' death. The ADL, on its website, has condemned The Passion for blatant anti-Jewish prejudice, including Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. But for Christians, The Passion is true to the Bible in showing that some Jews were complicit in Jesus' death. So, in this case, there is agreement on the facts. The Passion presents some Jews of the time as complicit in Jesus' death. But for one group, that means the film is anti-Jewish. For the other group, it means the film is historically accurate and consistent with the Bible. Does that mean the Bible is anti-Semitic? Can this conflict be resolved? Can I even ask this question without getting in big trouble? No, it doesn't, yes it can, and I hope so. The root issue here is the question of collective guilt. It is a crucial question for all of us: Are we only guilty individually, or can we be guilty as part of a group? Are all Jews guilty of killing Jesus? Are all whites guilty of enslaving blacks? Are all Germans guilty of the Holocaust? Are all Japanese guilty of bombing Pearl Harbor? Are all Muslims guilty for 9/11? The answer, of course, is no. Rejecting the notion of collective guilt defuses the Jewish complicity issue. Even if there was Jewish complicity in Jesus' death, we can all agree that actions of a few Jews 2,000 years ago do not confer guilt on all Jews back then, or any Jews today. Unfortunately, the promotion of collective guilt (and its evil twin, collective victimhood) is a cottage industry. There are advocacy groups dedicated to making us feel guilty (or victimized) by virtue of some characteristic we (or they) possess, be it race, religion, gender or something else. Collective guilt is a profit center. Nevertheless, we must reject collective guilt. We must reject it in our words, and we must reject it in our actions. Sure, we all make bad choices, we all sin. But my sins belong to me, and me alone; they are not visited on my son, friends or anyone else. In a very real sense, that is the fundamental point of The Passion: Jesus died for all our sins, so we wouldn't have to die for each others'. One concern voiced by some audience members was whether The Passion would increase violence against Jews. They cited a number of reasons for this fear, such as rising violence against Jews worldwide, and historical links between mass violence and passion plays. In his response to these concerns during the question and answer session, Mel Gibson strongly condemned anti-Semitic violence, as did the others in attendance. He clearly stated that his intention is not to incite violence or give succor to anti-Semites, but to tell a story of love, hope, faith and forgiveness -- the story of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice. But, as one participant put it: "No one is worried about the people here in this room. The problem is the nut cases outside who are looking for a reason to attack Jews. These nut cases are people who would see the film and come to the conclusion that Jews today are responsible for Jesus' death, and then seek out and attack Jews." At the risk of sounding insensitive or anti-Semitic, this logic seems like a stretch to me. First, The Passion makes you disgusted and exhausted with violence; it doesn't incite it. Second, if some wacko wants a pretext to attack Jews, there are better ones already available in the Bible, ((Matthew 27:25: "All the people said, May his death be on us and on our children.") not in the movie. Finally, The Passion is a violent film rendered in Aramaic and Latin with subtitles but no car chases or sex scenes. Not exactly standard bigot fare. It could be that part of the solution to anti-Semitism is Christianity. It is a radical notion, and maybe I am wrong. But it is certainly worth talking about. Given all the controversy of late, I feel compelled to make a couple of comments about the behavior of the Anti-Defamation League. Unfortunately, Rabbi Eugene Korn, an officer of the ADL who attended the screening, has violated the confidentiality statement he signed as a requirement to see The Passion. He has made extensive comments to the press, attacking both the film and Gibson's sincerity. And he wants constructive dialogue? As my mother once said to me, "Want something? Try starting with good manners." It's certainly not the way we do things in Houston. But leaving Rabbi Korn aside, the reaction of the ADL to The Passion makes little strategic sense to me. What are they thinking? First, consider the following two points: ?The Passion will be released. (Is the ADL really going to change its core principles and start advocating censorship?) ? The Passion will be very strongly embraced by Christians, particularly evangelicals. (Is this a surprise?) If these two statements are true, the tactics employed by the ADL violating confidentiality, launching ad hominem attacks on Mel Gibson, pressuring him to self-censor his movie, etc., could backfire and drive a wedge between Jews and evangelical Christians. That can't be a good idea. Second, these tactics are also more likely to increase ticket sales when the film is released. If you think the film inspires hatred, why give it so much free publicity? Don't you know that, in Hollywood, there is no such thing as bad publicity? Finally, these tactics are more likely to incite the nut cases. This is already happening. After publicly criticizing the movie, the ADL has announced an increase in their hate mail. They appear to blame this on The Passion. But these nut cases haven't seen the movie; how can their idiotic writing campaign be caused by the movie? Obviously, it is not. The hate mail is a bigoted reaction to the ADL's reaction. Regrettable? Yes. Mel Gibson's fault? Gimme a break. Regardless of all the hoopla, we in Houston will continue to live together as we always have, with openness and cooperation. We will continue our community conversation, sharing our hopes and fears, working to fulfill the first and alleviate the second. The screening of The Passion reinforced my confidence that our remarkable city can carry on that conversation in a calm and rational manner. I can hardly wait until the movie comes out. Linbeck, a native Houstonian, is president and chief executive officer of Linbeck Corp., a national construction firm. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/editorial/outlook/2050976 [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Thu Aug 21 18:07:13 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Thu Aug 21 18:15:42 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/22/2003 - "Forbidden for years - Thousands pay tribute to Hess" Message-ID: <3.0.32.20030821180712.00df5518@getmail.lemire.com> ZGram -Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 22, 2003 A little notice that speaks volumes! [START] Thousands Pay Tribute To Rudolf Hess Nationaler Widerstand Berlin 8-21-03 WUNSIEDEL, Germany--Despite attempts by German authorities to obstruct a commemoration for murdered prisoner of conscience Rudolf Hess, thousands from all over Europe gathered Saturday to pay homage to Adolf Hitler's deputy. Approximately 5,500 persons--predominantly young people-- from all over Europe came on Sunday, August 17 to call attention to the criminal injustice of Hess' murder and its subsequent cover-up. Hess was strangled to death in 1987 by members of the British secret services in collusion with the Americans. Delegations from Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and other European countries marched in quiet, disciplined dignity through the small Franconian town. At a rally preceding the march, attorney J?rgen Rieger and other representatives of the foreign delegations called attention to the fate of Rudolf Hess, who was murdered on August 17, 1987. In their presentations they exposed the lies, historical falsification and Illogic that the man who had flown to Britain in a heroic attempt to stop the madness of World War II was somehow a "war criminal" who had committed "crimes against humanity." Except for a few frustrated anti-Nazis shouting the usual obscenities, a poignant silence fell over the town. Many local residents, especially those of an older generation, stood along the pavement with tears in their eyes as the huge procession slowly passed by. http://www.rense.com/general40/hess.htm [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Aug 24 00:06:36 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Aug 24 00:10:53 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/23/2003 - "Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, Absurdistan-Style" Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20030824000636.01149278@getmail.lemire.com> ZGRAM - Where Truth is Destiny August 23, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I did not send a ZGram yesterday because I was flooded with bounced return SoBig Virus messages - and did not want to aggravate the situation by adding to the disaster. Today's ZGram will make up for it in length - if not in clarity. I pulled it from the David Irving website and read it with a very heavy heart. This is the first time I even saw this document. It is an important one, though. I wish I could have helped to write it, for it simply screams for clarity and precision. Unfortunately, that could not be - and as you read it, keep in mind that it was written in inhuman circumstances by a man pushed to the limits of his endurance while being trapped by a political monstrosity that calls itself a "democratic" government. In simplest words, Ernst Zundel is straining against an injustice one can only call demonic. He has it out with politically subservient underling with not an ounce of independent thought who blithely ignored the evidence, painstakingly collected, that Germany is NOT a democratic government. This creature, says Ernst Zundel in far too many words, thinks nothing of sentencing a man to a lifetime of incarceration - by mouthing platitudes! For what? For having "missed" a governmental agency interview that was never even scheduled? Watch out how precedents are being set. Today it is Ernst Zundel. Tomorrow it could well be you. [START] (Paul Fromm prefacing:) As one of the many legal works Ernst Z?ndel has had to research and prepare, with only a pencil stub, in his maximum detention cell, is the following Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. This is his response to the government's argument that he faces no danger should he be deported to Germany. In the preface to this document, you'll notice the horrific prison conditions inflicted as punishment by the Canadian state in an effort to break Mr. Z?ndel. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION ________________________________________________________________ Submissions by the prisoner Ernst Z?ndel, July 25, 2003 Ernst Z?ndel #2218-7604 Toronto West Detention Center 111 Disco Rd. Box 4950 Rexdale, Ontario M9W 1M3 Tel: (905) 354-2143 Supervisor, Niagara Falls CIC PRRA Unit 6080 McLeod Rd. Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada L2G 7T4 July 25, 2003 Observations, Arguments, Submissions and Conclusions. Re: PRRA Report on me, Ernst Z?ndel, prepared by pre-removal risk assessment officer and dated 8 July 2003. This document is prepared in my 24-hour maximum security lockup cell at the West Toronto Detention Center under the following conditions: * I have no access to a photo copier, no pen, only a pencil stub, no highlighter, no paper clips, no stapler, no post-it-notes, no file folders, no self-adhesive address labels, no plastic tabs to mark individual file areas, no color dividers, no color paper, no way of binding my presentation or even a rubber band to hold the documents together; nor do I have my files at my disposal. * All stools have been unbolted and removed from segregation cells. I write this response standing up or lying on my bed. * My access to the telephone is tightly controlled and sporadic at best. I can call only a very limited number of people like my lawyers, my wife, my children, and some friends, if and when the guards consent to fetch the phone, slide it into the feeding hatch of my cell for an arbitrarily determined period of time. Since I have no watch and there is no clock, I never do know when my time is nearing its end or is up. Thus, I often have to terminate my conversations in mid sentence because the guards demand thephone back NOW! I can make only collect calls out which means if no one is at the number I have called because I only got access to the telephone after business hours, I am out of luck because answering machines cannot take collect calls. If I reach a secretary, he or she often is not authorized to take collect calls. Thus, I have no opportunity to leave a message even with my lawyers, my legal representative, family, friends, businesses, etc. * I cannot make collect calls to cell phones from prison, neither to my lawyers or friends. This is a huge hurdle impossible to overcome. This makes any communication with lawyers or friends uncertain, with the result that it has taken my sometimes a week before I was able to track down my lawyers, one of whom, Mr. Christie, lives and works in Victoria, B.C., 5,000 km away from where this jail is located, a three-hour time zone difference. My lawyers do not speak German, a handicap in this case because the subject deals with a possible deportation to Germany and many of the documents, laws, newspaper articles, etc., I needed to draw in, would be in German. I submitted all scraps of information I have been able to marshal via letters from prison to friends on the outside in my original PRE-REMOVAL RISK ASSESSMENT submissions. Since I have no access to a photo copier or carbon paper, I am criticizing Mr. Somerville's report, therefore, without access to the actual documents which I submitted in the original, as I had no chance of making copies of my submission. Finally, to complete the listing of difficulties encountered by me in preparing this commentary on Mr. Somerville's PRRA report, I have not been able to speak to Mr. Christie for over a week because the Bell telephone conference call he had booked did not take place due to technical problems beyond my or the prison's control. Mr. Christie seems to be traveling. Thus, this report does not have the benefit of any lawyer's input. There are several other difficulties which need to be recorded for history and the shameful treatment I have had to endure since February 19, 2003. * Before I meet with my lawyers or visitors (segregated totally behind glass sometimes), outside of regular visiting hours, I am padded down, having to lean against the wall like in Hollywood movies. * My pockets are searched, although I have had no contact with anyone. * {More often than not], I have not been allowed by the guards to take along a pencil stub or a piece of paper to make notes of things I might have to do or write away for. * When I am taken to the visitor's area, a Captain and two guards have to accompany me at all times. They sit in an adjoining room, observing me even when I meet visitors behind thick pains of bullet-proof glass! I am not able to take any notes. Not even toilet paper is allowed to blow my nose dripping from allergies. * When visiting time is over, I am once again searched, leaning against the wall before I enter my cell, always minus running shoes which have to be left outside my cell in the hall, with my toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrush, soap, and towel. On Friday, the July 25, 2003, after meeting with Legal Agent, Paul Fromm - in an interview room, and under the watchful eye of a guard posted there the entire time, once again, without a pencil stub or a scrap of paper - when I came back from this totally observed visit by guards and a Captain, I was ordered to take off all my clothes one item at a time, hand it to the guard for thorough examination and, when I was stark naked, I was ordered to stick out my tongue, stretch up my arms, show the guard the soles of my feet, and bend down to touch my toes, showing him my rear end, I suppose, so he could see my anus, if I was hiding something. Since I had nothing on me, he left me there standing stark naked in my cell, wondering about what had become the Canada of my boyhood dreams! My response to Mr. Somerville's report takes place against this background and I want the Reviewing Assessment Officer and especially the Canadian public to know what my new reality in Canada is in 2003. Maybe, this is what Coderre, the immigration minister meant, "Just watch me" when asked [what] he and the government of Mr. Chretian intended to do with me. Actually, it should be what they intended to do TO ME! Here then are my criticisms, observations, arguments, submissions and conclusions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pre-Removal Risk Assessment report produced by Mr. C. Somerville, and handed to me in prison by an Immigration Officer on July 8, 2003. I do not know what educational or legal training or political science or history background or human rights legislation studies a PRRA Officer has to have to qualify him to hold such an important office in this area of Canada's immigration and refugee processes. I raise this question because I am astonished - actually, alarmed would be a more appropriate word - when I read Mr. Somerville's superficial, perfunctory, casual, and callous treatment that he has given to my submissions and documents supplied to him in my initial submissions to the PRRA Unit on May 29, 2003. The assessment he arrives at could only be the result of poor job performance, laziness or, what is far more likely, a politically-correct report about a well-known, albeit media-demonized, therefore unpopular dissident. The government in Ottawa, as Mr. Somerville's indirect employers, wants to be rid of [me] by one way or another, preferably under the guise of legality. This means is a National Security Certificate railroading me, making use of secret evidence, secret witnesses, in camera hearings with unidentified people where [the accused and his] attorney are not allowed to be present. We will not be told the names of these people nor shown any documents they submitted. We will not be given any transcripts of these proceedings - Possibly, if we are lucky, censored summaries only. To my knowledge, no Security Intelligence Review Committee members - the watchdog of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, appointed by parliament, specifically to keep an eye on the activities of the spy service - is present to monitor these secret proceedings before a presiding judge. The accused has no effective way of probing, testing, or shaking this evidence or the witnesses because it is secret. The special Federal Court Judge appointed to hear a National Security Certificate case is the final arbiter of the evidence. There is no appeal allowed of this judge's decision which turns automatically into a deportation or removal order once issued. This is why The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment report assumes such a crucial role in these types of proceedings, unprecedented in Canadian judicial history. The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment report can mean the difference to a slated deportee of a lifetime behind bars in some foreign land without Canada's Charter of Rights protection - or even a death sentence, either by torture, deprivation of freedom, inadequate health care or murder or execution - while in prison in some foreign land. This includes Germany! Thus, these Assessment Reports should look very carefully at each individual's case, especially so in the case of political dissidents or human rights activists who have been a thorn in the side of repressive regimes where the deportee is being sent, as is the case with me with Germany. That clearly must have been the intention of the Canadian Parliament when it drafted this important last-ditch review and assessment process. It is for this reason above all that I find Mr. Somerville's report to be galling, for he displays not a hint of sensitivity or understanding of a human rights drama being played out and being [laid] bare to him by the documents and evidence supplied to him for study and reflection while preparing his report. This is not some general overview of the political, judicial situation in a country allied to Canada in a military alliance. It is supposed to be a specific investigation and detailed report about an individual person - in this case me, Ernst Z?ndel - a vocal dissident against Germany's repressive regime for decades. I have excoriated the current German's government's dismal human rights records when it comes to specific areas of German politics, history, and when it comes to the origins and foundations of Germany's current regime. I have made it amply clear and buttressed my claim with numerous documents, some exhaustive in nature and detail, that it is the State and its organs I have to fear because of the way the German State is constituted and the ideological foundations it rests on which are hostile to me. Thus, the entire premise of Mr. Somerville's report, either intentionally or unintentionally, is flawed. His conclusions are in glaring error and dangerous to me! I cannot turn to the police, the judiciary or any other agency of the German regime for protection - as was made logically and perfectly clear in the material supplied to Mr. Somerville at the PRRA Unit. This is what makes the wording and the glib reasoning of his assessment so shocking and also galling to me. I will give just a few examples of this method used by Mr. Somerville. These include not focusing on the very real fears of persecution and mistreatment, buttressed by documents he and his office were supplied with by me. His conclusions when looking at the German situation are based, it seems, not on primary research but on official German government press releases, handouts and publications -- in other words German propaganda. He uses a U.S. Senate Publication on the German human rights situation. Note how often it is used by Mr. Somerville in his footnotes, as compared to the sparsely used or referred-to documents I supplied based on the actual experiences of dissidents like myself before German courts, appeal courts or even the highest German Court, the Constitutional Court. The latest reference to these U.S. Senate documents is 2003. I want to draw the attention of the reviewer to the fact that the United States Government has, since the attacks on New York and Washington, September 11, 2001, passed legislation in the form of its Patriot Act and adopted repressive measures; such as keeping thousands of people in prisons whose names are not divulged, who have no access to lawyers, whose families do not know where they are or whether they are alive or dead. The United States has also re-activated the notorious Military Courts, staffed entirely by military personnel against whose decisions there are no appeals. The U.S. holds prisoners incognito in open-air, special camps in Guantanamo Bay - off limits to inspection by human rights bodies and, to my knowledge, even the Red Cross. I find that Mr. Somerville's reliance almost exclusively on U.S. Government publications without serious investigation of his own on the ground unconscionable and questionable, given the dramatic changes in U.S. law. Of course, the German system is beginning to look "reasonable" when one compares it to what has happened to the human rights of hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S.A. like myself and others in the hysteria of the post-911 attack era. I have personally experienced the treatment meted out to dissidents as revealed in the ongoing litigation in the U.S.A. at present in my recent deportation from there. Mr. Somerville says about the German situation: * "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens." * "Prison conditions generally met international standards." * "The Basic Law prohibits arbitrary arrests and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions." * "Bail exists but is seldom employed." * "The Basic Law provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision in practice." * "The Basic Law provides for freedom of the press and the Government generally respected this right in practice." * "The Law provides for freedom of assembly, and the Government generally respected this right in practice." * "The law provides for freedom of association, and the Government generally respected this right in practice." * "A wide variety of international and domestic human rights groups generally operated without government restrictions." I count nine laws affecting the most important human rights of a population. The Assessment Officer takes refuge in the nonissue-specific word "generally". Not once does he mention the very specific documentation I was able to supply him with from inside my maximum security prison cell. This material shows in case after case how the German system grossly ignores and thus violates the political opinions, civil and human rights of its citizens, and especially those of dissident writers, broadcasters, and commentators like myself. He was supplied the evidence of this. This, therefore, is not an oversight! Mr. Somerville had hundreds of pages of documents by researchers, mostly academic, peer review and heavily, meticulously footnoted, mostly in English. Thus, there can only be one explanation - which is that the very real evidence of anti-Democratic behaviour and tactics and the set-up of the post-war German vassal state (created by the Allied conquerors of Germany to suit their occupational goals and policies) did not fit either Mr. Somerville's private prejudices or what seems eminently more likely, it does not fit the Canadian liberal government's political agenda, which has, for several decades, been to criminalize me, their domestic German/Canadian human rights advocate, and have me deported to their NATO ally, Germany, for further persecution by prosecution. More Evidence Ignored. The Assessment Officer was supplied with explanations about the substance and, therefore, the differences between the Canadian and German anti-hate legislation, and also its comparison to international standards. Nowhere in Mr. Somerville's Assessment Report is there any reflection, much less an understanding, of the vast difference, in substance and application between the Canadian and German laws. This difference in Germany affects the citizen's right to debate, discuss and air politically [and] historically sensitive topics like the holocaust. This is the cause of the Z?ndel human rights case. Mr. Somerville glibly declares these German hate laws as being laws of "general application",whatever is meant by this odd terminology, and he opines that they are similar to Canada's hate laws - which they are possibly on the surface but certainly not in substance. In Canada, the truthfulness of a statement made is a defence which can be raised [Ingrid's comment here: This applies to criminal prosecution but not to Human Rights type prosecutions where Truthi is NO defense!] as is also whether the intention of the accused was to raise a topic designed to remove a social ill by way of exposing it and in order to debate it in public so as to remove the ill. I have no Criminal Code available to me in my cell and have not been able to reach my lawyers to get the exact wording of the hate sections in Canada's Criminal Code. Mr. Somerville, in a footnote #31 on page 9, of his Report, gives the "Canadian Criminal Code, 2003, Pocket Criminal Code, page 35" for his faulty understanding or claim that Canada's hate laws are similar to Germany's abominations. Nowhere is there any reference that he looked at, understood or even reflected on the crucial texts on this topic supplied to him or his office by me. Mr. Somerville simply says about the heart of the matter in the entire Z?ndel case and my submissions before him: "In Canada, there is similar legislation." (See page 9 of his report.) A high school dropout would be held to a higher standard of analysis by his teacher than is applied here in a human rights case with international notoriety and also implications for the future in this hysterical era of "The War on Terror". Mr. Somerville then imports from the German Government's arrest warrant against me an item I have never before heard raised by any Canadian prosecutor or judge in all my many court appearances over two decades in any Canadian court. It is the "V?lkerstrafgesetzbuch". This obscure document must be so rare that Mr. Somerville does not give us its English name or title, but simply takes, obviously at face value, what the German Police concocted in their arrest warrant issued - significantly on the day of my illegal deportation to Canada from the U.S.A. on February 17, 2003 at Ft. Erie, Ontario. Let me reiterate: In spite of the more than ample evidence supplied to the PRRA Unit and, thus, to Mr. Somerville in my initial submission of May 29, 2003, about the dismal situation for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association for political/historical dissidents holding my particular point of view in Germany, Mr. Somerville ignores the evidence and whitewashes the German State. The fact that my activities in the publishing, speaking and broadcasting of my human rights activities over 43 years in Canada have led to no criminal convictions or convictions overturned by Canadian courts due to the protection of Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Somerville is of the opinion that it is perfectly alright that I should be sent off to Germany, where these words, spoken, written or broadcast would result in my immediate arrest and imprisonment for a minimum of five years, but more likely than not, for seven to ten to 15 or even 20 years, given Germany's judicial lawlessness in matters relating to Jews and the holocaust. Mr. Somerville looks upon such typically German crimes as to "publicly deny an act under National Socialist rule" or "disparaging the memory of the dead", amongst others as alright, even though by any stretch of the imagination, there are no comparative statutes in Canadian criminal law. There is also the matter of the holocaust topic. In Canada, at least for the moment, the holocaust is still perfectly legal to be discussed in public. In Germany, however, questioning the holocaust is punished by a five-year minimum jail term. In spite of the documentary evidence supplied to the PRRA office, Mr. Somerville simply does not seem to be able or could not care less how it impacts on my case and on my life, should I be deported to Germany from Canada! Thoughtful readers and observers, especially people with an understanding of the marvel of Anglo-Saxondom's legal traditions, evolved over a thousand years, will be nothing but astonished once they reflect what is taking place now in Canada's politicized civil service and in its course, particularly the evidence heard in secret in camera proceedings in my case. Therefore, I want to drive home the shocking state of affairs and danger posed by this alarming trend to the millions of naturalized Canadians from all parts of the globe and to permanent residents and landed immigrants like myself, [of whom] there are hundreds of thousands if not millions living in Canada. Make no mistake about it: The government has chosen me, the most media-demonized immigrant in the country, to get a precedent set to railroad others, using the spurious accusations that they are a threat to national security to this country for their ideas that happen to be disliked by a powerful lobby, not for any real crimes they might have committed. Mr. Somerville also either does not comprehend or else willfully ignores my submissions and documentation, which make it perfectly clear that it is the politicized justice system, the political police called hypocritically the "Verfasserugsschutz" or "Constitutional police" who are a threat to people with my thoughts and beliefs. Thus, they will be my persecutors and oppressors and prosecutors. I can hardly turn to them for protection, as Mr. Somerville cynically suggests! One of the most callous observations in this report, which is supposedly to assess the risks I would face if deported to Germany, is this one: "Evidence indicates punishment for the crimes the applicant is alleged to have committed range from fines to five years imprisonment. I do not find this punishment so draconian as to be completely disproportionate to the objective of the law". It is not Mr. Somerville's job to speculate on such legal objectives. Had Mr. Somerville done actual research on the way the Germans apply these laws, he would have quickly and easily found out, as illustrated by the G?nther Deckert case, that the current Quisling state in power there uses the salami tactic of laying charges in political dissident cases by applying every six months to a year to the courts forever new charges to be added by treating any new phrase or sentence they may find uttered by me, even those uttered decades ago, but now on one of 800 nationalist web sites. The German censors, according to Mr. Somerville, say: "German officials estimated that there were approximately 800 Internet sites with what they considered objectionable and dangerous right wing extremist content.". Any sentence or item carried by any of these 800 web sites which purports to have been spoken, written, or broadcast by me legally in Canada or America, can add years, theoretically, up to five years for each offence to my sentence! This could mean four more charges could add 20 years! Mr. Somerville does not consider this draconian or completely disproportionate. Let me spell it out for you how draconian it is. It will mean a virtual life sentence for me for my political/historical beliefs about an alleged event called WWII which supposedly happened 58 years ago and about which I was critical in Canada or America where it was legal to think, write and broadcast this criticism 5000 km away. A virtual life sentence - and a Canadian bureaucrat cannot comprehend that this is more cruel and unusual punishment than it is meted out to Iranian dissidents by the Ayatollah Khomenini or Communist China would to dissidents caught in Tianenamin Square! Really! Think about it! Mr. Somerville had the effrontery to say of Germany: "The judiciary provided citizens with a fair and efficient judicial process." I supplied ample evidence to make this statement a bold-faced lie. If Mr. Somerville doubted my claims, he could easily have verified them by some serious research. He would have found that all my expert witnesses, historians, academics with Ph.D.s from famous universities, which Canadian courts have accepted and qualified in criminal proceedings, were rejected by German courts, along with all other documentary evidence I tried to introduce in my court cases there. How can that be called "a fair judicial system", much less a democratic one by a Canadian official? Mr. Somerville says that the Germans have an "efficient judicial process". The gall of this statement is shocking in light of the evidence I supplied to him. German Criminal Courts have abolished the taking down or recording verbatim the words uttered by all involved in a court case since 1977. Thus, there are no transcripts of the proceedings of the criminal cases in Germany! This, again, was pointed and explained in documents supplied with my initial PRRA report of May 29, 2003, to the PRRA office in Niagara Falls. There is not a lawyer, prosecutor or judge who would not at once realize that this medieval system, reverted back to by the Quisling state, is and has been used to produce the grossest miscarriages of justice. Evidence was supplied. Yet none of it is reflected in the Somerville report. His naivet? about the vast difference between the two judicial systems, the Canadian and the German is astounding. The major difference is our legal tradition of setting an accused free on bail pending trial versus keeping someone locked up, often for lengthy periods in politically-motivated prosecutions while awaiting trial in Germany. There, only one out of a hundred accused ever gets bail. Mr. Somerville glibly points out that the German state will compensate an individual in cases of acquittal. That THIS amounts a mere pittance paid by that state to a person [who] has been victimized, brutalized, deprived of the most fundamental human rights, the right to be free once again does not phase Mr. Somerville. A man with such a mindset has no right to deal with questions of human rights. In short, speaking as a German-Canadian human rights activist and writing from a maximum security 24-hour lockup cell in the Canadian Gulag, imprisoned for my thoughts and associations and words I have alleged to have written, spoken and broadcast, I find Mr. Somerville's Pre-removal Risk Assessment Report slipshod and totally unethical. It will serve as one more embarrassment to the people who are denying me my due process rights and who are trying to railroad me out of this country where I have worked and contributed as a perfectly law-abiding landed immigrant and permanent resident for 43 years. My treatment is one massive human rights violation! These are my arguments. My submissions are that another Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer be assigned to review the evidence, all of it, and do an independent, non-biased report - Based on the actual facts existing on the ground in Germany, which would await me after deportation there! A real risk assessment - not flimflam and bla-bla! This process, I understand, is the reason for doing this: to prevent violations and abuses of human and civil rights in countries to which Canada was deporting people. The process and the legislation were intended to safeguard human rights and not to espouse self-serving government propaganda, either for the Allied Quisling Occupation Regime now holding the German people in subjugation or a Canadian Government doing the bidding for a "voter segment" as George Jonas, the well-known Jewish-Canadian journalist recently so aptly called the government's national security certificate process against me. In short, pandering for votes in the next federal election! Jewish votes, to be clear! On the part of the Liberal Government in Ottawa. Sincerely, Ernst Z?ndel, Prisoner of Conscience Cell #5, Maximum Security Area Toronto West Detention Center 111 Disco Rd, Box 4950 From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Aug 24 21:32:55 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Aug 24 21:34:25 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/24/2003 - "The shoe is on the other foot" Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20030824213255.0114a620@getmail.lemire.com> ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny August 24, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: How do the Americans say it - "What's good for the gander is good for the goose?" (Or vice versa?) This ought to make you smile. It shows that some people have chutzpah - and, no, not the ones that you think! [START] http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD55603#_edn1 Special Dispatch Series - No. 556 August 22, 2003 No.556 Egyptian Jurists to Sue 'The Jews' for Compensation for 'Trillions' of Tons of Gold Allegedly Stolen During Exodus from Egypt The August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi featured an interview with Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Al-Zaqaziq who, together with a group of Egyptian expatriates in Switzerland, is preparing an enormous lawsuit against "all the Jews of the world." The following are excerpts from the interview: [1] Dr. Hilmi: ". Since the Jews make various demands of the Arabs and the world, and claim rights that they base on historical and religious sources, a group of Egyptians in Switzerland has opened the case of the so-called 'great exodus of the Jews from Pharaonic Egypt.' At that time, they stole from the Pharaonic Egyptians gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, clothing, and more, leaving Egypt in the middle of the night with all this wealth, which today is priceless." Question: "What will the group of Egyptians in Switzerland do about this issue?" Hilmi: "Dr. Gamil Yaken, vice president of the Egyptian community in Switzerland, came to Egypt to collect information. We set up a legal team to prepare the necessary legal confrontation aimed at restoring what the Jews stole a long time ago, to which the statute of limitations cannot possibly apply. Furthermore, [the theft] is based on their holy book, the same source on which they relied when they invaded other peoples. "The Egyptian Pharaoh was surprised one day to discover thousands of Egyptian women crying under the palace balcony, asking for help and complaining that the Jews stole their clothing and jewels, in the greatest collective fraud history has ever known. "The theft was not limited to gold alone. The thieves stole everything imaginable. They emptied the Egyptian homes of cooking utensils. One of the women approached Pharaoh, her eyes downcast, and said that her Jewish neighbor who lived in the house on the right of her house had come to her and asked to borrow her gold items, claiming she had been invited to a wedding. The Jewish neighbor took [the items] and promised to return them the next day. A few minutes later, the neighbor to the left knocked on the door and asked to borrow the cooking utensils, because she was having guests for dinner. Using this same deceitful system, they took possession of all the cooking utensils." Question: "It is clear why they stole the gold, but why the cooking utensils?" Hilmi: "Taking posession of the gold was understandable. This is clear theft of a host country's resources and treasure, something that fits the morals and character of the Jews. Yet what was not clear to the Egyptian women were the reasons for stealing the cooking utensils, when other things may have been of greater value. However, one of the Egyptian priets said that this had been the Jews' twisted way throughout history; they seek to cause a minor problem connected with the needs of everyday life so as to occupy people with these matters and prevent them from pursuing them to get back the stolen gold... "A police investigation revealed that Moses and Aaron, peace be upon them, understood that it was impossible to live in Egypt, despite its pleasures and even though the Egyptians included them in every activity, due to the Jews' perverse nature, to which the Egyptians had reconciled themselves, though with obvious unwillingness. Therefore, an order was issued by the Jewish rabbis to flee the country, and that the exodus should be secret and under cover of darkness and with the largest possible amount of loot. The code word was 'At midnight.' In addition, the Jewish women were told to steal the gold and cooking utensils of the Egyptian women, and that is what happened." Question: "Did they leave individually or as a group?" Hilmi: "They left in a convoy of 600,000, that is, about 120,000 families. There were a few wagons in the convoy, and a long line of donkeys loaded with the stolen goods. They crossed the desert in the heart of Sinai, in an attempt to confuse Pharaoh's army, which was on their trail. Later they rested and began to count the stolen gold, and discovered that it reached 300,000 kg of gold." Question: "But the Jews can cast doubt on this story with their usual methods. What is the religious evidence you said is in the Torah?" Hilmi:"Naturally, the Jews cast doubt on this story because that is in their interest. But the answer would be that the story is based on what is written in the Torah. It can be found in Exodus, [Chapter] 35, verses 12 through 36." Question: "So what arguments can be made in support of getting back our stolen gold?" Hilmi: "There are two types of claims, one religious and the other legal. >From a religious standpoint, all monotheistic religions have called not to steal. It is also in the Ten Commandments, which the Jews were ordered [to observe]. Therefore, they have a basic religious obligation to return what was stolen, if it exists. "From a legal standpoint, fleeing with the Egyptians' goods could be for the purpose of borrowing or for the purpose of stealing. If it is for the purpose of borrowing, legally it has a temporary dimension, not a permanent dimension, and therefore they must return [the gold], with interest, to its owners. "On the other hand, if the Jews took the goods from the Egyptians not for the purpose of borrowing it but to keep them for themselves, by legal norms this is theft, and therefore they must return the stolen goods to their owners, in addition to the interest for its use over the entire period of the theft." Question: "What do you think is the value of the gold, silver, and clothing that was stolen, and how do you calculate their value today?" Hilmi: "If we assume that the weight of what was stolen was one ton, [its worth] doubled every 20 years, even if the annual interest is only 5%. In one ton of gold is 700 kg of pure gold - and we must remember that what was stolen was jewelry, that is, alloyed with copper. Hence, after 1,000 years, it would be worth 1,125,898,240 million tons, which equals 1,125,898 billion tons for 1,000 years. In other words, 1,125 trillion tons of gold, that is, a million multiplied by a million tons of gold. This is for one stolen ton. The stolen gold is estimated at 300 tons, and it was not stolen for 1,000 years, but for 5,758 years, by the Jewish reckoning. Therefore, the debt is very large. "The value must be calculated precisely in accordance with the information collected, and afterward a lawsuit must be filed against all the Jews of the world, and against the Jews of Israel in particular, so they will repay the Egyptians the debt that appears in the Torah." Question: "Is a compromise solution possible?" Hilmi: "There may be a compromise solution. The debt can be rescheduled over 1,000 years, with the addition of the cumulative interest during that period." [END] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Mon Aug 25 15:50:15 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Mon Aug 25 18:37:13 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/25/2003 - "Orwell paraphrased: All children are equal, but some are more equal than others" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 25, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Think how many millions of children in the world have had to read The Diary of Anne Frank, at the insistence of Jewish pressure groups. Now read the following: [START] Children's author faces Jewish wrath Tale of boy's life in West Bank prompts pressure groups to call for withdrawal Fiachra Gibbons, arts correspondent Saturday August 23, 2003 The Guardian Jewish pressure groups are calling on a publisher to withdraw a children's book about a Palestinian boy growing up amid the intifada on the West Bank. A Little Piece of Ground, by the multi-award-winning author Elizabeth Laird, is a fictional account of how a 12-year-old called Karim - whose family's olive groves have been confiscated by settlers - copes when his father is stripped and humiliated by Israeli troops. As the boy is swept up in the protest against the occupation, and his friends make a fake bomb, he dreams of developing an "acid formula to dissolves the steel in Israeli tanks". Macmillan has received three demands for the book to be pulped, and many bookshops are worried about stocking it, lest it provoke further protests from Jewish groups. So far, most of the attacks on Laird have come from North America, led by a chain of Canadian bookshops which made the first "vitriolic" complaint to her publisher. It is understood that others have come from Jewish pressure groups. The New Zealand-born novelist wrote her book after visiting Ramallah as part of a British Council scheme to encourage writing for children. She denies the story is anti-Israeli. "I did expect comeback, but to say that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is doing Israel a disservice. This is an important story that should be told. It shows a child under military occupation. It's terrible for the occupiers, and terrible for the occupied. I hope I have shown how awful it is for the soldiers too," said Laird, who has lived in Beirut and Iraq. "There is already a great deal of understanding of Israel. All western people have felt sympathetic to Israel, for good reason often; and I don't think that should stop. The voice of the Palestinian child, on the other hand, has not been heard." Children's writer Ann Jungman, a member of the liberal Jews for Justice in Palestine group, said that she admired the book but still found it biased. "It's not what is in there that I object to. It's what has been left out. There should have been a broader picture. All the Palestinians are reasonable, and all the Israelis are monsters." Laird, who has won the Children's Book Award, the Smarties Prize and been nominated three times for the Carnegie Medal, claimed A Little Piece of Ground was not meant to explain politics. "It's true, lots of Israelis are trying to come to an accommodation with the Palestinians, and many refuse to serve in the West Bank. But the book is written through the eyes of a 12-year-old who just sees men with guns. It would not have been true to my characters to do otherwise. "The book is not so much about politics as about brothers, friendship, falling in love and football." The title comes from a scrap of waste land that Karim and his friends turn into a football pitch and which later becomes a flashpoint in the violence. Laird insisted that everything in the book was drawn from real events. "A lot of the incidents have come from the main Israeli human rights website", while others were taken from the experiences of her collaborator, Sonia Nimir, a lecturer at Bir Zeit university on the West Bank. Laird said she "toned down" several parts of the book, but that the motivation for suicide bombing had to be tackled. "Suicide bombings are going on in the background, and in one scene I have Karim's uncle questioning his [Karim?s] hunger for vengeance after his father is humiliated by the soldiers. He tells him: 'Does that make it right for us to go and bomb them?'" Britain's children?s laureate, Michael Morpurgo, has defended the novel. "Sometimes we need more than escapism. No one but Elizabeth Laird could have written this book. She has lived in the Middle East. She knows it, loves it, grieves for it, and hopes for it." He urged parents to encourage their 11- to 14-year-olds to buy it. "Read it, and we know what it is to feel oppressed, to feel fear every day. And we should know it, and our children should know it, for this is how much of the world lives," he said. Macmillan refused to discuss where the demands to pull the book had come from, but Kate Wilson, managing director of its children's arm, said the firm had no intention of withdrawing it. "We thought long and hard about whether it was responsible to go ahead. We were aware it might provoke a range of opinions." She said Macmillan was not afraid of enraging Jewish opinion: "I do not think there is a powerful Jewish lobby in this country. Elizabeth is a remarkable writer, with an amazing ability to get under the skin of her characters - we see the perspective of the soldiers as well as Karim's." Ms Wilson maintained that the book directly confronted Karim's support for suicide bombers. "Its central theme in many ways is his clash with his uncle, who opposes them." Family crisis Extract from A Little Piece of Ground Karim has watched his father being dragged from the family car and stripped at an Israeli checkpoint... He [the young Israeli soldier] is terrified, Karim thought, with surprise. He thinks we're going to attack him. He could almost smell the soldier's fear. "She didn't mean any harm," he said, hating the placating note he could hear in his own voice. "I'll take her back to the car." The soldier shoved at him roughly. "Take her. If there's any more trouble from you, you go over there and join the other terrorists." Karim scooped Sireen up in his arms and ran back to the car with her. Lamia had half opened the door, but another soldier was alongside the car now, ordering her to shut it. Karim handed Sireen to her and jumped into the back seat. "Oh, my darling," sobbed Lamia, her face in Sireen's hair. Karim was trembling violently. He felt sick with the backwash of fear. Farah moved across and leaned against him, her thumb firmly in her mouth. Her other hand clutching at his arm. This time, he didn't push her away. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them, he thought, unable now to look at his father, who still stood, reduced to an object of ridicule, beside the bewildered old man. [END] (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1028034,00.html ) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Tue Aug 26 09:51:50 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Tue Aug 26 18:04:25 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/26/2003 - "More uproar over Mel Gibson's 'Passion'" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 26, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: It was an odd alliance to begin with - and now a serious disagreement is flowering before our very eyes between what's called the "Christian Zionists" and those who desperately need their uncritical support. I predict there's more to come from where the following originated: [START] Mel Gibson 'Passion' Film Causing Uproar Rachel Zoll 8-26-03 The reasons evangelicals back Israel vary - The uproar over Mel Gibson's upcoming film on Jesus' death is testing the unusual partnership between American Jews and evangelical Protestants, who have recently become among the staunchest supporters of Israel. Many conservative Christians have called "The Passion" the most powerful depiction they've seen of Christ's final hours. But groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have argued that the portrayal of Jews in the events leading to the crucifixion will promote anti-Semitism. The Rev. Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, upset some Jewish leaders by mentioning support for Israel in a recent statement defending Gibson's movie, set for release next year. "There is a great deal of pressure on Israel right now and Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel," Haggard said, after a private viewing of the film for top evangelicals. "For the Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems shortsighted." Haggard said in an interview that his comments were not meant as a threat, but as a "word of caution" that Jewish complaints "may come across to some average people as them being against a movie about Jesus." Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Haggard's comments "sad and offensive." "You don't achieve interfaith relationships by being tolerant of anti-Semitism," Foxman said. "My understanding has always been that evangelical support of Israel is out of goodwill, good faith and is not conditioned as a quid pro quo on any issue." An ADL representative saw a screening of the film in Houston, after which the group complained that the film portrays Jewish authorities and a Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to execute Jesus. Gibson has said the movie is not anti-Semitic. Haggard insisted that disagreement over the film would not destroy the Jewish-Christian alliance on Israel. The National Association of Evangelicals says it represents 51 conservative denominations with 43,000 congregations. However, some leaders say the dispute is forcing both sides to confront the uncomfortable theological differences between them. ranging from a sense of shared spiritual heritage to support for a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust. The strongest pro-Israel sentiment comes from a subset of evangelicals known as Christian Zionists, who see the existence of modern Israel as a precondition for the second coming of Christ, which is to be preceded by a period of extreme violence and the death of millions, including Jews. Many Jewish leaders have been uneasy about accepting this support. Even so, conservative Jews and evangelicals have been working together for Israel more closely than ever. Last year, American Christians donated $20 million to help Jews resettle in Israel, said Rabbi Yehiel Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Eckstein, who has sought Christian support for Israel for 25 years, agreed that Haggard's remarks "would confirm for a lot of Jews their suspicion that there is a quid pro quo." But he argued the ties between Christians and Jews over Israel are so strong, "it's not even going to register on the radar screen. It's not even going tobe a blip." Dave Blewett, president of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, disagreed. He said that until the recent flap over the movie, Jews troubled by working with evangelicals had concluded they needed support for Israel so they would deal with religious disagreements later. "Well, it's all coming up now," Blewett said. The executive committee of his organization, which represents evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics, plans to discuss fallout from the movie at its meeting in October. Foxman said he has already received calls from Jews who had opposed working with evangelicals. They are pointing to Haggard's remarks as evidence that the partnership is unworkable. But Haggard said Jewish leaders are the ones making relations more difficult by focusing so intensely on Gibson's film. "I don't think that Christian leaders are going to compromise on their support of Israel no matter what, certainly not over their like or dislike of a movie," he said. But, he added, "if the impression is that Jewish leaders are against the (crucifixion) story being told, then that's not helpful to us." [END] ON THE NET National Association of Evangelicals: http://www.nae.net/ Anti-Defamation League: http://www.adl.org/adl.asp (From The Associated Press, available online at: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/6615048.htm) From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Thu Aug 28 12:00:46 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Thu Aug 28 16:59:18 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/26/2003 - "Is there a thaw in Germany?" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 26, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Some very interesting developments seem to be going on in Germany of interest to Revisionists. It looks like a serious effort is being made, partly with the silent agreement of the Powers-that-be, to dismantle the so-called "Holocaust" myth kind of by what we call salami tactic - one slice at a time. The information below is incomplete, and I have been waiting for some of our more scholarly Revisionist folks to do an essay analysis - but so far, nada! I don't have time to do it or to undertake the necessary careful translations. So let me give you the rudiments. At first, there was the Fritjof Meyer essay in an obscure but apparently scholarly publication called Osteuropa. Now Fritjof Meyer is not just anybody - he is a senior editor of Der Spiegel, one of the most important magazines in Germany. While not (yet) tackling the contested issue of "genocidal gassings", Meyer claimed that only some 375,000 people died in Third Reich concentration camps during the war - nowhere near the "Six Million" claimed. Now to do a thing like that is heresy in Germany! The people held their breath. Nothing happened. Next, there were rumors that four different self-accusing "Holocaust Deniers" had dared four independent courts to charge them. The courts did not oblige. Not enough evidence! Then the flamboyant and controversial German attorney, Horst Mahler, did his thing. I have described it briefly already. Here I let Walter Mueller, the California publisher of a community paper, tell it how he heard it: [START] [Slightly edited] "Lower German Court Says Its OK To Question Holocaust Horst Mahler Says Only 375,000 Died At Auschwitz - German Court Agrees From Walter Mueller Commentary 8-27-03 Dr. Tom Sunic arrived in Sacramento yesterday and we had coffee this morning. He just came from a summer school, put on by the NPD in Saarbruecken, Germany. He was the interpreter for Horst Mahler. As you know, the NPD (http://www.npd.de) has won a court case, which forces the German government to treat them like a major party, including funding. Also incredible news about Horst Mahler's lawsuit: Background: A while back "Der Spiegel" printed an article, written by [Fritjof Meyer], where [Meyer] points out that not more than 375,000 Jews had been killed. In an ingenious move, Horst Mahler, who is an attorney, took the editor, the writer and himself to court for Volksverhetzung/holocaust-denial. The lower court declared that it was not holocaust denial to point out the true facts of the holocaust. This decision has not been appealed yet. It makes it possible for Germans now to question the holocaust, I guess, until somebody appeals the lower court decision. Because of this court decision, Horst Mahler wanted to travel to Auschwitz to give a speech. However, German authorities confiscated his passport. [...] Then, Horst Mahler went a step further, testing the courts decision by traveling to Wartburg, a famous German Fort, and displayed a banner, saying that the holocaust is a hoax, and that only 375,000 people died in Auschwitz. German authorities made pictures of the banner, however, [they] could not charge him under their "Volksverhetzung" law, because of the court decision. If this is not awesome news for free speech and inquiry, I don't know what is. Wouldn't it be amazing if we had activists like this here in America. [END] Finally, I received a brief summary from someone via John Bryant who runs the popular website, www.thebirdman.org : [START] This is a highly interesting law-suit filed by Herr Glagau ... against the three top politicians in Germany. He is sueing them for "Failure to render assistance". This appears to be a German legal concept which requires a person to render assistance to another in case of need. In German legalese 'person' seems to mean an individual OR an entire people. [Glagau] claims (rather convincingly so) that the three knew all along and certainly must know by now, that the Auschwitz myth is exactly that - a myth, no more and no less - and that this myth has been used to literally enslave the German people. He goes on citing several obvious instances and situations proving his assertion, i.e. that Germany is being ruled by the Allies of WW2, using puppets, that these puppets are living high on the hog, while being the Step-'n-Fetchits for the victors of WW2. He furthermore points out the fact that witnesses for the defense were kept from appearing at various concentration camp trials, witnesses which include former concentration camp inmate Rassinier, a French communist party official and revisionist author. The law-suit also points out that several similar lawsuits have been filed in the past, only to disappear - and that the authorities have stonewalled every effort to get to the truth. The suit essentially says that since the three in question are in powerful positions, as representatives of the German people, they are legally obliged to uncover the lies, thereby 'assisting' the German nation in her rehabilitation and 'assisting' her in stopping the continued outrageous Holohoax-blackmail payments. [END] Somebody NEEDS to tackle all this in a scholarly way and put some parameters around it, telling us what this might mean in the Grand Design of Things. Let me just finish by saying that I know Glagau from his writings - and I have read this latest in German. Glagau is now 90 years old, still sharp as a whip, and he essentially says: "See if I care...I will tell it now like it is!" Perhaps his law suit will dislodge the triste matter and bring some sanity back into Germany? I wish him all the luck. I know what I would do if I were in Germany and in a leadership position. Now that the ball has start rolling, I would line up as many young people as I could and ask them to speak their own minds as loudly as they could about the Holocaust in a very public place. My guess is that would do it! In the meantime, scholars to the fore! This needs to be written up for the archives! Ingrid From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Aug 29 06:34:47 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Fri Aug 29 08:53:51 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/28/2003 - "The truth is 'hate speech' only to those who have something to hide" - Part I Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 28, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: One of the most helpful websites, to me, is Michael Rivera's www.whatreallyhappened.com - largely because there is a consistent "voice" running like a red thread through all artices that I consider to be the Authentic American voice: A genuine desire to know whatever truth there is to be found in our largely hypocritical world, and healthy outrage at injustice. In the following two ZGrams, belonging together, I will show you what I mean. Rivera is the author. [START] The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide This article was originally was written in response to efforts to conceal the Israeli spy scandal, the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the United States, behind cries of "hate" and "anti-Semite". I am not "anti-Jewish", I am anti-espionage. There's a difference. I don't blame the Jewish people for the crimes of the Israeli government and the Mossad any more than I blame Americans for the crimes of the United States Government and the CIA. Israel's supporters constantly spin any criticism of Israel's actions as hate against the Jewish people. Indeed so desperate are Israel's supporters to dismiss criticism of Israel while being unable to refute the actual facts that they have taken to describing Jewish critics of Israel as "self-hating Jews." The current focus on the Israeli spy ring is about crimes committed against our nation by a foreign government, plain and simple, and whether one opposes those crimes or is accessory to those crimes by seeking to conceal them. There can be a no more dangerous path than for our government, our media, and our citizens than to ignore the presence of the largest spy ring ever uncovered within our nation simply because it is connected with a "protected" nation presumed to be above reproach or criticism. I urge you to all to continue to contact your representatives and your local media and demand a full and public hunt for the spies in our midst. Those who seek to protect those spies by suppressing this story must be suspect. In the wake of the revelation of yet another spy scandal involving the Mossad, involving the arrests of the largest spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, and the existence of a huge system that allowed Israel to track telephone calls by media, politicians, law enforcement, indeed all Americans, as well as the means to eavesdrop on actual calls by using the wiretapping system built into the telephone system by an Israeli owned company, any and all reports of this scandal have been met with the charges of "hate speech" and "anti-Semite". Recent weeks have seen supporters of the self-proclaimed Democracy of Israel resorting to endless hacker attacks and online smear campaigns against web sites and authors whose only "crime" is to not go along with Israel's agenda or of refusing to bury embarrassing scandals. These phrases, "hate speech" and "anti-Semite", are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms. Indeed they have been used so much that they have become red warning flags that the person using those phrases has something to hide and needs to shut down the discussion by any means possible. By screaming "hate speech" or "anti-Semite", Israel's supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved. I've run this web site for over 8 years. You can check through the pre 9/11 version of What Really Happened for yourself to see if I have had any excessive preoccupation with Israel during that time. Only since 9-11 have I paid any attention to Israel, and that solely because the ACTIONS of the government of Israel have called attention to Israel. In the wake of the spy arrests this is a story that Americans need to know about, to know that someone else may be listening when that phone is picked up, if the phone tapping system was actually paid for with the money we send Israel every year, to know what intelligence service may be blackmailing our government and media, and to what purpose. It is the deepest irony that the Anti-Defamation League that has blacklisted this vary web site for "hate", recently settled a lawsuit after being caught spying on Americans. Israel's supports respond to any criticism by screaming, "He hates Jews!". The truth is that I don't hate the Jewish people. I know a lot of Jewish people and count as my friends the ones who are as respectful of me as I am of them. My first wife was Jewish. My closest business associate is Jewish. What I hate are certain actions of INDIVIDUALS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. I hate the idea of someone spying on our nation's citizens. I don't like our own government to do it; why should I be any less opposed to a foreign government doing it? Why is it not reasonable to hate those who pry into our government, then use the information to coerce that government into actions contrary to the good of our own people? I hate that sort of behavior. All civilized people should. I would hate the perpetrators of the spy ring and the phone taping scandal if they were Russian, British, Lithuanian, Brazilian, whatever. That's a perfectly normal response to this crime. Hate gets a bum rap. In our politically correct society we are taught that it's bad to hate at all, but I disagree. Hate can be a good thing. There are lots of things I hate and I am not ashamed to admit it. I hate liars. I hate thieves. I hate drug dealers. I hate corrupt politicians. I hate child molesters, especially those hiding their crimes behind the church. These are hates that are good for the people to have. Maybe if more people allowed themselves to hate liars, thieves, druggies, and the corrupt, our nation wouldn't be in the mess it's in. Think about that for a while. Hate can be good. Hate could actually save our country. I hate those who presume to decide for us what we can and cannot see, hear, or read. I am firmly opposed to and have openly defied efforts by our own government to withhold from the people information the people need to make good decisions with. When the Israeli lobby coerces Fox News to erase the story about Israel's spy ring, should I be less outraged at the concealment simply because the censors are Israeli? To NOT speak out about a crime because the perpetrators are Israeli is racist. Because this is EXACTLY what we are dealing with. Crimes. Espionage. Illegal wiretaps. Interference with investigations. Under the definitions in the USA Patriot bill, the organized campaign by AIPAC and others to force Fox News to drop the espionage story is itself (technically) an act of terror. To those who insist that the Israeli spy scandal should be ignored because it makes all of the Jewish people look bad, I ask if we should have ignored Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibalism because it made the people of Milwaukee look bad? Speaking of racism, the ideal held forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that no one race is superior to others; that no one race should rule by virtue of being a specific race. We even fought a civil war partly on that principle, and while the United States has not always lived up to that ideal, we have never surrendered it as our goal. So, when Arial Sharon openly bragged on October 3rd that, "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it", why should I not find this statement objectionable, and anti-American? Why should I not feel something less than affection for the man who made that statement? Why should a reasonable citizen of this nation not wonder to what extent Sharon was speaking the truth, especially in light of the manner in which Fox News was forced to erase the Carl Cameron stories? As seen in the subtitle above, the truth is "hate speech" only to those with something to hide. In the wake of the exposure of this latest spy scandal, the government of Israel might have expressed some public regret or shame over treating its purported friend, from whom it gets more foreign aid than is given to the entire continent of Africa, in such a shameful manner. Instead what we have seen is censorship of the American news by a foreign power, apparently with the permission of a compromised or complicit US Government, and the shrill cries of "hate speech" and "anti-Semite" hurled at anyone who dared presume to notice or comment on what Israel has been caught doing. If you want to know why Israel is so much in the news it isn't because of "hate" and it isn't because of "anti-Semitism", it's because foreign owned companies were caught bugging the phone system (including that of the White House) and foreign citizens have been arrested as part of the largest spy ring ever found in the United States and in the since-censored news story, the US Government admits to the existence of evidence linking those arrested spies to 9-11. That is NEWS, no matter what nationality is involved. The good side to the Fox News incident is that for the first time, Americans got a good look at just how much power and influence over what we see and hear is being exercised. It doesn't even matter who did it; that it was done at all is the lesson for our time. In recent weeks, the same government that goes after kids for pirating music turned a totally blind eye to the massive hacking campaign directed at web sites critical of the official 9-11 story. People need to pay attention to that as well. It is not "hate" to point out facts the American people should be paying attention to, especially on the threshold to what might turn out to be a world war started by deception. [END] Tomorrow: Part II of "The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide" From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Fri Aug 29 06:36:19 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Fri Aug 29 08:54:07 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/29/2003 - "The truth is 'hate speech' only to those who have something to hide" - Part II Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 29, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: This is the second and concluding part of Michael Rivera's essay titled "The truth is 'hate speech' only to those who have something to hide." It comes from www.whatreallyhappened.com [START] It is not "hate" to point out that CNN followed Fox News' example by erasing their story about the 2 hour advance warning of the World Trade Towers attacks received by employees of Odigo, one of the companies implicated in the espionage case. It is not hate to ask what really happened to USS Liberty. It is not hate to ask if the Lavon Affair was repeated at the World Trade Center. But if you want to see REAL hate in action, please read on. 1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies - not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001 2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000 3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982. 4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988 5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983. 6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969. 7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969 8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972. 9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121. 9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes: "The old will die and the young will forget." 10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983. 11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking. 12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983. 13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157. 15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978. 16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum" 17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. 18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979. 19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas. 20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5. 21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998. 22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972. 23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry. There is a double standard at work. Israeli supporters prowl the internet and the media shouting "hate speech" not at those who actually hate, but at those who focus on the embarrassing truths Israel does not want Americans to think about while they pony up another few billions dollars. The good news is that Israel's supporters have screamed "hate speech" and "anti-Semite" so much that the phrases have lost their shock value, which means they have lost their value to silence. Certainly I am not concerned about any labels placed on this web site by an organization of acknowledged spies. Indeed I am gratified to be recognized as such a threat to their plans and purposes. I am proud that efforts to get the truth out are working. This web site has had only one purpose since its creation; to make the cost of lies by politicians exceed the benefit of those lies, so that all government everywhere would discover that truth to the people is really the best policy. From the fear shown by Israel's supporters in their hacking, smearing, and blacklisting, it would appear that this web site has at least in part been successful. [end] From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sat Aug 30 05:27:07 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sat Aug 30 08:17:04 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/30/2003 - "Norman Finkelstein, as outspoken as ever" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 30, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: It is very strange about self-imposed taboos - they are practically unassailable. Just as every far-sighted, fair, rational and reasonable Jew - there are a few, believe it or not! - can't bring himself to say in public that the so-called "gassings" in German concentration camps didn't happen because there is no evidence, so practically every fair-sighted, fair, rational and reasonable person on the Right can't bring himself to say in public that (gulp!) Hitler might have had a point or two - and might have had, in fact, a few farsighted, fair, rational and reasonable programs to lessen the ills of our world. Dr. Norman Finkelstein, with whose writings I have hardly any quarrel - being the genteel Gentile lady that I am, I just pretend I didn't hear that he called Revisionists "kooks" - cannot bring himself to say that "gassings" didn't happen. Israel Shamir, for whose stylistic masterpieces and consistent ethical stance I have the greatest reverence, can't either. Makow can't. Chomsky can't. Margolis can't. I could go on and on. Similarly, but not to the point of the ZGram to follow, if I look in the haystack with the proverbial magnifying glass, I cannot find five Western journalists or politicians of any stature worthy of respect of their admirers or constituents, who can bring themselves to say that Zundel might be right about the things he says about the F?hrer. Odd, isn't it? Adolf Hitler has been dead for more than half a century, and there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell that what he saw and tried to remedy in the 1930s in Europe could be revived and applied on our continent - or elsewhere, given present Western leadership. Then why such irrational fear? Such is the power of self-censorship. Here's Finkelstein in a European media interview, as published in the Irish Times, July 1, 2003, page 13: NORMAN Finkelstein is the nearest you can get to a Jewish heretic. He is a Jew but an anti-Zionist; the son of Holocaust survivors but a ceaseless critic of what he terms "the Holocaust industry"; a left-wing historian whose views are often praised by revisionist right-wingers such as David Irving. He is a pugilist by inclination, never missing an opportunity to fire insults at his enemies among Jewish organisations in the US and Israel. They, it must be said, are not slow to respond in kind. Insults flew within minutes when Finkelstein appeared recently with an Israeli government spokesman on RTE Radio 1's Morning Ireland, and Cathal Mac Coille, the presenter, had to call the two off each other and beg for calm. "You're supposed to lie down and take the insults, and I'm not going to do it," Finkelstein says. "The level of arrogance of these people just boggles the mind." He believes Jewish organisations are "huckstering" the Holocaust by extracting huge sums in compensation that never get to the survivors. "What they have done, by turning the central tragedy of Jews in the 20th century into a weapon for shaking down people for money is pretty disgusting; it's wretched." He denounces some of the campaigns for reparations against Swiss banks and claims that more than $20 billion (E17.5 billion) has been collected in compensation claims arising from the Holocaust. Because he is Jewish, Finkelstein gets away with the kind of language others would never be allowed to use. He accuses Jewish organisations, for example, of conducting themselves "like a caricature from Der Sturmer", the notorious Jew-baiting magazine of the Nazis. He repeatedly refers to the organisations as "crooks" and has even called Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the "resident clown" of the Holocaust circus. The roots of his anger lie in his parents' experience. Finkelstein's father survived the Warsaw ghetto and Auschwitz concentration camp; his mother lived in the ghetto and ended up in Majdanek camp. He describes both as confirmed atheists. His father received compensation from the German government. "I still remember the blue envelopes that came in every month. At the end of his life he was getting $600 a month, or a grand total of about $250,000. Even though there was no love lost between my father and the Germans - he hated them all - there was never any complaint about the money. The Germans were always very competent and efficient." In contrast, his mother's compensation was channelled through American Jewish organisations. "Even though they went through the same experiences, she got a grand total of $3,000 and no pension. That's what you get from Jewish organisations." THE line he takes on the Israel-Palestine conflict is similarly controversial, at least within his community. "A colossal wrong has been inflicted on the Palestinians, and no amount of rationalisation can justify that. There are possibilities for peace, but the Israeli elite won't allow them to happen." Finkelstein's latest book, a second edition of Image And Reality Of The Israel-Palestine Conflict, is a scholarly attempt to undermine the popular image of Israel and its dispute with the Palestinians. He situates the creation of Israel firmly in the colonial tradition and seeks to debunk writers who claim the Palestinians never existed historically. He compares Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid South Africa's attitude to its blacks or US settlers' view of native Americans. "All these settlers used the same language. What was left out of the picture was that there were people living there before they arrived. We were told there was a wilderness, that it was virgin land and that every once in a while there were these savages, slightly above the level of the fauna, who would attack the settlers." A New Yorker by birth, Finkelstein admits he has very little direct experience of Israel, although he has visited the occupied territories more than 20 times. "When I'm there no one even cares less that I'm Jewish. In the first year I was a novelty; by the third or fourth it was just, hey, Norman's back." "Elie Wiesel, the resident clown of the Holocaust circus" So is he, along with other solidarity workers who spend time with Palestinians but enjoy freedom of speech and personal security back home in the West, just a meddler? "I don't want to be there. I'm a complete coward. My hat comes off to those young people who work in difficult circumstances, who help Palestinians dig a well or who come to aid of people who are being shot at. If that's meddling, I say we need a lot more meddling in the world." Asked if Israel can be considered a democracy, he responds: "Was South Africa a democracy in the old days? It was a democracy for whites, for the 'superior people'. Similarly, Israel, for the larger part of its history, has been a society where half the population has all the rights and half the population has none." But what about the democratic rights of Palestinians under Yasser Arafat? "How can you have a democracy under occupation? People there have no rights without the approval of Israel. How democratic is Alcatraz? Or a concentration camp?" There is a solution, he insists. "I don't think the way out is so complicated. People constantly try to shroud the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in all kinds of mystification. They say it's about ancient enmities, it's about the Bible or religion or it's about the clash of cultures. But when you go to live there you see it's not complicated at all. The fact is that there's a military occupation, and that has to end." And then what? "Then you hope Palestinians and Israelis will live together in peace." Although Finkelstein enjoys the security of being a US citizen, he has paid a price for his views. His four books have been popular successes in Europe - The Holocaust Industry sold 130,000 copies in Germany in three weeks - but in the US he has been shunned and his books have been savaged. The New York Times, he once commented, gave a more hostile review to The Holocaust Industry than it did to Hitler's Mein Kampf. This clearly rankled, and he returns to it. "I don't want to play the martyr, but if you look at my history I didn't make out so well. I didn't get the headlines. I'm in exile in [DePaul University in] Chicago because I was thrown out of every [university] school in New York. "I'm not happy to be in Chicago. I want to be at home. That's why I keep an apartment there. I'm still praying for a miracle. I've had a hard time." ===== Image And Reality Of The Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein is published by Verso, ?15 in UK From zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org Sun Aug 31 03:13:29 2003 From: zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org (zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org) Date: Sun Aug 31 05:43:13 2003 Subject: ZGram - 8/31/2003 - "Jurgen Graf: The Last Battle" Message-ID: ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever! August 31, 2003 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Below you have one of the best summaries of what the so-called "Holocaust" is really all about - one of the most terrible psychological weapons ever to paralyze Western civilization and to cooperate in its own destruction. This summary was written by Jurgen Graf, a Swiss Revisionist, now living in exile in Russia. As the article states, it was written "... at the end of the year 2000" - that is, BEFORE 9/11! Let us ponder for a minute what that means! Was 9/11 necessary - because the Holocaust, as a weapon of psychological warfare, had lost its power, thanks to Revisionism research? Certainly Durban made many people conclude this to be so. Then 9/11 happened - and, once more, Zionist power consolidated and asserted itself as never before, particularly on the American continent! Read this incisive summary, internalize it, and pass it on - preferably to influential media and politicians: [START] The last battle Jurgen Graf "Achieving our quest for a new world order depends upon our learning the Holocaust's lesson." Ian Kagedan, director of government relations for the Jewish Bnai Brith organisation, as quoted by the Toronto Star, 26 November 1991.} The transformation of the holocaust into a religion The orthodox holocaust story can not possibly be defended with rational arguments because its absurdity is overwhelming. We are asked to believe in the fata morgana of a vast slaughter in killing factories which left no traces whatsoever - no documents, no bones, no teeth, no ashes - nothing! We are further asked to believe that the Allies, who had a large network of informers all over Europe and a spy in the German leadership (Admiral Canaris, the head of the German intelligence), did not become aware of this gigantic genocide until the end of the war, for if they had known about the mass murder, they would have acted to stop it. Finally, we are asked to believe that the Jews in Poland, the epicentre of the holocaust, did not know anything about the Auschwitz gas chambers as late as in August 1944, otherwise the Jews from the Lodz ghetto would not have gone to Auschwitz voluntarily - which is precisely what they did, as related by Raul Hilberg in his standard work about the holocaust (Die Vernichtung der europaeischen Juden, p. 543/544). As the Zionist-controlled system of the "Western democracies" is woefully unable to counter the revisionists with arguments, it resorts to censorship and brute force in order to silence the dangerous heretics. And the Jews are gradually transforming the holocaust into a religion. This is a very clever strategy, for as Robert Faurisson aptly remarks, one cannot refute a religion with scientific arguments. Thus, the holocaust museums and holocaust monuments spreading like mushrooms all over America and Europe are really temples of the new religion, whereas professional "holocaust survivors" such as Elie Wiesel are the priests of the new religion. To prove this assertion, we only have to quote Wiesel himself: "The Holocaust is a holy mystery, the secret of which is limited to the circle of the priesthood of survivors" (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 1999, p. 211, 212, retranslated from the German). Another high priest of the holocaust cult, Simon Wiesenthal, goes even further: "When each of us comes before the Six Million, we will be asked what we did with our lives... I will say: I did not forget you" (Simon Wiesenthal in Response, Vol. 20, Nr. 1). No critical questions about the holocaust are allowed because they are a blasphemy: They cause immense distress to the eternal victims of persecution, the Jews, and are an attempt to whitewash National Socialism - the most evil ideology of all times which made the holocaust possible! In today's Germany, it is even considered inadmissible to compare the holocaust with the atrocities of communist tyrants such as Stalin or Cambodian dictator Pol Pot because this is regarded as a "relativisation" and "trivialization" of the worst crime in history. French Zionist propagandist Claude Lanzmann, the producer of a long and unspeakably dull film about the holocaust (the title of this film is Shoa, the Hebrew word for "catastrophe", which is often used by Jews as a synonym for "holocaust") makes no effort to conceal that the holocaust cult is to replace Christianity: "If Auschwitz is something other than a horror of history, then Christianity totters in its foundations. Christ is the Son of God, who went to the end of the humanely endurable, where he endured the cruellest suffering. (...) If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human suffering with which that of Christ simply cannot be compared. (...) In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him. (...) Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ." (Les temps modernes, Paris, December 1993, p. 132, 133.) Nowadays, a large percentage of the Jews do not believe in God any more, but virtually all of them believe in the Six Million. The Zionist leadership cunningly exploits the holocaust to unite the World's Jews by keeping them in a constant state of hysteria and persecution mania, insinuating that only if the Jews stick together will they be able to ban the threat of a new holocaust. It goes without saying that very few Non-Jews are willing to embrace the murky holocaust religion. While the overwhelming majority of people in the West still believe that the official holocaust version is essentially true (even if they suspect that the figures might me somewhat inflated), they are thoroughly fed up with the eternal lamentation about Jewish victims and Jewish suffering. They simply don't want to hear it any more. In Germany, opinion polls showed that a vast majority of the population was against the planned holocaust monument in Berlin (which not a single major party, not a single leading politician and not a single big newspaper dared to oppose). Privately, the politicians are probably as profoundly disgusted with the endless holocaust litany as the rest of the population, but they cannot possibly afford to let the revisionists win because this would shatter the very foundations of the "democratic" system to which they own their careers and their wealth. b) The function of the holocaust in the world since 1945 The political consequences of the holocaust since 1945 have been tremendous. When I speak about the "holocaust", I do not mean a historical fact, as the extermination of the Jews in chemical slaughterhouses did not actually take place. But in the mind of the populace, this extermination is as real as the Second World War or the Egyptian pyramids, while real genocides, such as the artificially provoked Ukrainian famine in which several million people were deliberately starved to death by the Communists in 1932/1933, are all but forgotten. Let us have a close look at these consequences: - The creation of the state of Israel "Without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state." This candid statement was made by a Jew, Robert Goldman (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 December 1997, p. 9). Goldman was right. Without the holocaust, the world would never have permitted the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine three years after the war. The colonial era was coming to an end at this time. The British had already decided to give India her independence, while dozens of Asian and African territories were striving to shake off the rule of the White Man. While other powers were rushing to grant independence to their colonies, the Jews in Palestine were allowed to embark on a colonial adventure par excellence, with the blessing of both the West and the Soviet Union. In order to ensure that their state would have a Jewish majority, the Zionists proceeded with ruthless brutality; whole villages were levelled, thousands of Arabs were murdered (Deir Yassein was but one of many massacres), and a great proportion of the Palestinians were expelled from the land of their ancestors. The ones who remained behind have been subject to severe repression ever since. According to the very pro-Zionist Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche (22 October 1992), no less than 15.000 Palestinian political prisoners were languishing in Israeli jails in 1992, and the use of torture was officially sanctioned by the Israeli supreme court in November 1996. As I am writing these lines, Israeli soldiers are shooting unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, many of whom are children, every day. Jewish terror in occupied Palestine is not actually encouraged or approved by world opinion, but it is tolerated. After all, the Jewish people need a homeland to protect them from a new holocaust, and what are the sufferings of the Palestinians compared to those of the Jews under Hitler? Let us beware of illusions: As long as people in the West believe in the six million and the gas chambers, they will always support Israel in principle, even if they criticise the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians as being unnecessarily harsh. Without outside assistance, the Zionist parasite state would not be viable. Its chief source of revenue consists of financial injections from America, support from international Jewry and German reparations. According to official sources, the Federal Republic of Germany had paid 85,4 billion Deutschmarks by 1992 (Der Spiegel, 18/1992), but the real sum is much higher. In addition, there have been enormous deliveries in the form of commodities. Nahum Goldmann, long-time chairman of the Jewish World Congress, made no secret of this fact; he wrote: "Without the German reparations that started coming during its first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure. All the trains are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industry" (Nahum Goldmann, Das juedische Paradox, Europaeische Verlagsanstalt, 1978, p. 171). In 1999, Germany provided Israel with ultra-modern submarines which can carry nuclear missiles. The Israelis did not have to pay a penny - the submarines were another token of German atonement for the holocaust! - Jewish Immunity [___ something missing here] of the Jews from criticism. Before 1945, criticism of Jews was legitimate. Today, that is no longer the case. Even the slightest criticism of Jewish power and Jewish arrogance - for example the heavy influence of the Jews in the mass media of the West, the staggeringly high number of Jews in the Clinton administration, or the impertinent behaviour of the Central Jewish Council in Germany - is immediately shouted down with screams about Auschwitz. The effectiveness of this intimidation is demonstrated by the following fact: The most obnoxious criminal organisation in the world is regularly referred to as the "Russian Mafia" although virtually all bosses are Jewish, often with Israeli passports. This is irrefutably demonstrated by Juergen Roth in his documentation Die Russen-Mafia (Rasch und Roehring, Hamburg 1996). The title of the book translates as "The Russian Mafia", for if it were "The Jewish Mafia", the author would have gone to a German jail, and his book would have been burnt. In today's Russia, five or six out of the seven big "oligarchs" who made their fabulous fortunes with money stolen from the Russian people are Jews. This is never mentioned in the Western media. - Creating contempt for the German nation. Since 1945, the German people have been branded with a mark of shame. Self-contempt and self-hatred is the prevailing trend, while self-respect and patriotism are held in contempt. After the 1991 war against Iraq, George Bush senior, who was then president of the USA, publicly spoke of a "New World Order" which he did not care to define. As a matter of fact, the "New World Order" means that America, as the undisputed superpower, can impose its policy and its dubious values on all other countries. And America is nowadays largely ruled by the Jews. (Even if Jewish influence is much less pervasive in the Republican party than in the Democratic one, the Jews still own virtually every major newspaper and most of the television chains so that no Republican president can afford to govern against them. In modern society, nobody can govern against the media, as Richard Nixon learned to his disadvantage a quarter of a century ago.) c) What would happen if the holocaust were publicly exposed as a fraud? If the holocaust were publicly exposed as a shameless fraud, if people all over the world learned that, while the Jews undoubtedly were brutally persecuted during the Second World War, there was no attempt to exterminate them, that the death factories, gas chambers and gas vans were a Jewish swindle, and that the six million figure was a fantastic exaggeration, the Zionist-led "New World Order" would be all but finished. Germany would become ungovernable; the German people would feel nothing but hatred and contempt for the politicians, intellectuals and journalists who betrayed and humiliated them day after day. The whole establishment of the country would be hopelessly discredited. This the representatives of the establishment know. On August 15, 1994, journalist Patrick Bahners, commenting on the trial of revisionist Guenter Deckert who was sent to prison for "holocaust denial", wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "If Deckert's attitude on the holocaust were correct, the Federal Republic of Germany would be based on a lie. Every presidential speech, every minute of silence, every history book would be a lie. Therefore, he [Deckert], by denying the genocide of the Jews, disputes the legitimicy of the Federal Republic of Germany." The problem could hardly be stated more aptly. Some German opinion makers now openly declare that the Holocaust is the foundation of the post-war German state. This is shown by a quotation from the influential newspaper Die Welt (28 April 1994): "Whoever denies the truth about the National socialist extermination camps relinquishes the foundations upon which the Federal Republic of Germany was built." But also in other Western countries, the belief in the so-called "democratic system" would be profoundly shaken as people would ask themselves why this charade had to be propped up with censorship and naked terror for decades. While the consequences of a public exposure of the holocaust as a fraud would be most serious for the Western system as a whole, they would be catastrophic beyond repair for international Jewry and the State of Israel. There would be a world-wide wave of anti-Jewish feeling, and no non-Jew would be willing to support the Zionist parasite state any more. German reparations would stop overnight, and the USA would have to reduce its financial aid to Israel so drastically that it would be bankrupt after no more than a year. The Jews in Israel would be utterly demoralised, as they would instinctively understand that a state founded upon such a colossal fraud has no moral right to exist. Since the holocaust religion, which unites Jews all over the world, would collapse, international Jewish solidarity would be a thing of the past. And the anger of the Palestinians would assume gigantic dimensions as they would understand that they had their country stolen and their sons shot in the name of a lie. d) The ultimate weapon against Zionism and the state of Israel At the end of the year 2000, Israel is a besieged country, but from the military point of view, it is still vastly superior to its neighbours, and it enjoys the unconditional support of the United States. Should any of the Islamic states grow strong enough to seriously threaten Israel, it would most probably be attacked and militarily annihilated by America. Russia is not likely to risk a confrontation with the USA for the sake of the Palestinians. We can certainly admire the bravery of the Palestinians resistance fighters who are willing to sacrifice their lives to liberate their homeland from the alien intruders, but realistically, they have no chance to win. The Palestinians have stones and slings. The Israelis have helicopters and tanks. You can't destroy helicopters and tanks with stones and slings. When fighting one's enemy, one should always look for his weakest spot. The weakest spot of Israel, its Achilles heel, is the holocaust lie to which it owes its existence. The revisionists can give the adversaries of Israel and international Zionism a terrible weapon. It is quite true that many revisionists are by no means guided by political considerations. Some of them - Carlo Mattogno is a good example - are only motivated by intellectual curiosity: They want to ascertain what really happened to the Jews during the Second World War. But even if revisionism is not a political movement, its political implications are tremendous. The revisionists are endeavouring to find out the truth, and truth is the deadliest enemy of Israel and international Jewry. Thus, the revisionists objectively work against Israel and Zionism, even if subjectively their goals are often purely scientific and devoid of any political ambition. This is, of course, the reason why they are persecuted and their books burnt in more and more countries. In view of the total Jewish media control and the ever-growing anti-revisionist repression in many Western countries, it is very difficult indeed to achieve a revisionist breakthrough. We revisionists are facing an uphill struggle which can only partly be explained by our total lack of financial resources. Fortunately the internet, which the Jews are unable to censure, has greatly improved our possibilities to make the results of our research known to the World, but all the same, we should not cherish naive illusions: Not every citizen of the Western world who is informed about the revisionist arguments will automatically become revisionist and anti-Zionist. The average person in the West - and particularly in Germany - has been so thoroughly brainwashed that a sudden exposure to the truth can provoke a nervous breakdown or stomach cramps. I have repeatedly witnessed this myself. Other people would gladly accept the truth about the holocaust, but as they know that even the slightest suspicion of revisionism leads to social ostracism, economic ruin and legal persecution, they understandably prefer not to get involved. However, if we want to win the war against those whom one of my Russian friends called "the enemies of God and mankind", we have no choice but to destroy the Big Lie, lest the Big Lie destroy us. The logical consequence of all this is that those countries which are authentically anti-Zionist and real friends of the oppressed Palestinian people should make the breakthrough of holocaust revisionism their foremost priority. A tank costs millions of dollars, yet one soldier can destroy it with a single missile. The revisionists can provide anti-Zionist freedom fighters with a weapon not even a thousand missiles can destroy. [END] ( Source: http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jglife/15.htm )